# Hydroplate Theory

264 replies to this topic

### #35 maikeru

maikeru

Explaining

• Members
• 794 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:22 AM

By observable processes, of course.

Or wishful thinking. That, and not SCW, seems to be the real crux of Hydroplate Theory.

Seriously, you merely reiterate textbook dogma. You provide no situations that either support tectonic processes or contradict hydroplate processes.

Perhaps you could learn a bit about the textbook dogma he so convincingly reiterates, for a good debate is a well-informed debate.

### #36 Eclogite

Eclogite

Creating

• Moderators
• 1477 posts

Posted 06 February 2007 - 02:26 AM

Seriously, you merely reiterate textbook dogma. You provide no situations that either support tectonic processes or contradict hydroplate processes. I am almost positive that you mean to imply that current processes are shown to have been active for millions of years, but I will neither build your argument for you nor base a reply on such presumption.

Southtown, I am massively disappointed in your response. Here is why:

You declared you had a genuine desire to discuss and debate the Hydroplate Theory, presumably with the intention of convincing at least some others of its merits. I wholly agreed with this thread, which was to provide the medium for such debate, being retained within Earth Science and not placed in pseudoscience.

Now, when you have a clear opportunity to debate the issues, in detail, you resort to rhetoric and obfuscation. Why? It very much gives the appearance that you are unable to respond.

You accuse me of promulgating textbook dogma. You are half correct. The items I have outlined would be readily available from any text book on sedimentology published in the last one hundred years. However, it most assuredly is not dogma.
Dogma carries the sense of ideas arrived at from a very restricted viewpoint. The details I have presented above represent the findings from an army of geologists, mineralogists, sedimentologists, chemists, geographers, and other scientists. These same findings can be duplicated by yourself, or any other person, should they care to take the time and the trouble to do so.

If you feel these observations are faulty - which you obviously do - please specify where you find fault. What specific aspects of say the significance of graded bedding do you find to be suspect? It is irrelvant to simply dismiss these details. You must either identify the weaknesses in my 'textbook dogma', or offer an equivalent explanation for field observations, based upon the HydroPlate Theory.

I do hope you are serious about discussing this issue. I have honoured my end of the bargain and shall continue to do so. It would be nice if you reciprocated.
• TheBigDog likes this

### #37 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 10:31 PM

Sorry, you're right. I think I misunderstood your purpose. And thanks for your patience and participation. I hope this post will be a more respectable response.

SouthT,

I take your above post to mean that you are unable to explain what is observed using hydroplate theory. Either prove me wrong, or stop.

Sorry. I thought Eclogite was trying to make a case supporting current theory. I see now that he was merely prompting me to continue in a certain direction, correct? Where do we get such a variety of sediments? How are they deposited exactly as observed? My reply will be brief since I wasn't preparing to cover it just yet. Also, I can't be sure that Brown claims the same things in his book, but I do know that he does at least allude to it.

"A supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its thermodynamic critical point. It has the unique ability to diffuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. Additionally, it can readily change in density upon minor changes in temperature or pressure. These properties make it suitable as a substitute for organic solvents in a process called Supercritical Fluid Extraction. Carbon dioxide and water are the most commonly used supercritical fluids." -- Wikipedia

Supercritical Fluid Extraction is the process of using SC fluids to dissolve substances and extract certain compounds via pressure fluctuations. Above, Wikipedia states that SC fluids diffuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. These properties are useful in extraction processes because SC diffusivity is highly tunable with pressure.

"Diffusivities of solutes in supercritical carbon dioxide are up to a factor 10 higher than in liquid solvents. Additionally, these properties are strongly pressure-dependent in the vicinity of the critical point, making supercritical fluids highly tunable solvents." -- Wikipedia

To summarize, SC fluids injected into a substance diffuse into that substance like a gas and then dissolve that substance like a liquid. This mixture is then pumped into a chamber with slightly lower pressure, which then decreases the diffusivity of the SC fluid and thereby causes the precipitation of particles of the dissolved substance. This process has been around for 30 years and is heavily utilized in processing food products such as decaffeinated coffee.

News article from physorg.com
PDF summary of SFE from UIC
Rapid Expansion of SCF process overview at PNNL

At the time of the rupture, the subterranean water held in suspension dissolved portions of both basalt and granite. Upon decompression of the SC water, the solutes were released from suspension as atoms and then agglomerated into molecules. I'm not capable of examining the particular chemistry involved at this point, but many separate compounds would have formed basically at random upon precipitation. This explains why sedimentary rocks vary so widely in composition and why they form in endlessly gradient ratios of constituents. The formation and deposition of sediments (and elements) are forthcoming as well as specific examples that support the hydroplate theory.

Reading a Ternary Diagram from Lynn S. Fichter at JMU

### #38 Eclogite

Eclogite

Creating

• Moderators
• 1477 posts

Posted 08 February 2007 - 01:27 AM

Thank you for the fuller response. I am still somewhat disappointed that you are avoiding addressing what I currently believe to be one fatal flaw in the theory, by simply offering an alternate explanation of the character of sedimentary rocks. I shall address some of your points, but first I must repeat my concern.
The very precise textural, structural and compositional character of sedimentary rocks matches what we see being formed in today's environments. Different environment - different sediment. How is it that the mechanism you propose - super critical steam extraction - would mimic much more complex sedimentary and diagenetic processes? If you cannot explain this the theory is wholly discredited.
Is there any evidence, whatsoever, that shows deposition from SC steam extraction duplicating known sediments or rocks in terms of texture, structure, etc.

At the time of the rupture, the subterranean water held in suspension dissolved portions of both basalt and granite. Upon decompression of the SC water, the solutes were released from suspension as atoms and then agglomerated into molecules. I'm not capable of examining the particular chemistry involved at this point, but many separate compounds would have formed basically at random upon precipitation. This explains why sedimentary rocks vary so widely in composition and why they form in endlessly gradient ratios of constituents.

Quartz is a major constituent of granite, forming up to 25% of the rock. Most sandstones are made of quartz, the source of which is granite. Some of this quartz, in sandstones is caught up in orogenesis (mountain building) where it stressed and heated. Later, eroded it again finds itself in a sandstone, but it now bears the marks of its burial in a regional metamorphic zone.
How does the Hydroplate theory account for these different types of quartz being present in sandstones? How does the super critical mechanism mimic processes that are occur in a wholly different environment?

### #39 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 10 February 2007 - 10:55 PM

This thread is a repository for all things geographic as relates to The hydroplate theory says that an unbroken, 10-mile-thick layer of granite crust completely covered the sphere of earth. Approximately half the earth's water was trapped beneath this crust and contained around twice the minerals that current sea water does. Beneath this underground water was a basaltic layer. The thicker portions of the granite came to rest on this basalt, forming a stable but flexible architecture. The pressure in the subterranean chamber could not escape because rock deforms like putty at 5 miles depth or so, and therefore cannot crack.

Then there is real scientific discovery in which real data is accumulated for real understanding of Earth's real processes. No doubt, such information can be deformed to suit whatever religious text one cares without ever cracking a smile.

A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth's deep mantle.
...
Michael E. Wysession, Ph.D., Washington University professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences, working with former graduate student Jesse Lawrence (now at the University of California, San Diego), analyzed 80,000 shear waves from more than 600,000 seismograms and found a large area in Earth's lower mantle beneath eastern Asia where water is damping out, or attenuating, seismic waves from earthquakes.

3-D model shows big body of water in Earth's mantle

### #40 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:03 PM

"Water is like a lubricant, constantly oiling the machine of mantle convection which then drives plate tectonics and causes the continents to move about Earth's surface," Wysession said. "Look at our sister planet, Venus. It is very hot and dry inside Venus, and Venus has no plate tectonics. All the water probably boiled off, and without water, there are no plates. The system is locked up, like a rusty Tin Man with no oil." -- pysorg.com

That's an interesting concession. Thanks Turtle. I postponed discussing the core and mantle to elaborate on sedimentation with Eclogite. When I do cover the interior though, your article will definitely come into play.

### #41 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:01 PM

"Water is like a lubricant, constantly oiling the machine of mantle convection which then drives plate tectonics and causes the continents to move about Earth's surface," Wysession said. "Look at our sister planet, Venus. It is very hot and dry inside Venus, and Venus has no plate tectonics. All the water probably boiled off, and without water, there are no plates. The system is locked up, like a rusty Tin Man with no oil." -- pysorg.com

That's an interesting concession. Thanks Turtle. I postponed discussing the core and mantle to elaborate on sedimentation with Eclogite. When I do cover the interior though, your article will definitely come into play.

It is no concession. Reading further in the article:

Previous predictions calculated that a cold ocean slab sinking into the earth at 1,200 to 1,4000 kilometers beneath the surface would release water in the rock that would escape the rock and rise up to a region above it, but this was never previously observed. ... 3-D model shows big body of water in Earth's mantle

My point is that tectonic plate theory predicted that we should find water in the lower layers that was dragged down by subduction, and now analysis of a large amount of seismic data has confirmed the prediction.

### #42 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 08 April 2007 - 04:01 PM

It is no concession. ... My point is that tectonic plate theory predicted that we should find water in the lower layers that was dragged down by subduction, and now analysis of a large amount of seismic data has confirmed the prediction.

I was referring to Wysession's comment that water was required to lubricate the tectonic mechanism of convection. Tectonics does have other problems however which I linked to in posts one and three. When I cover the mantle and core, I can discuss tectonics in more detail.

Thank you for the fuller response. I am still somewhat disappointed that you are avoiding addressing what I currently believe to be one fatal flaw in the theory, by simply offering an alternate explanation of the character of sedimentary rocks.

I'm not avoiding anything. I just haven't got there yet. In my first reply to you (post #16), I mentioned that I have around a dozen more essays to put forth regarding this theory. Try to realize that some of my other responsibilities may supercede this thread and please refrain from insinuating that I am avoiding certain points. Also know that I greatly appreciate all your input as it forces me to dig deeper into the subject than I would have otherwise. And I apologize for taking so long to respond.

The very precise textural, structural and compositional character of sedimentary rocks matches what we see being formed in today's environments. Different environment - different sediment. How is it that the mechanism you propose - super critical steam extraction - would mimic much more complex sedimentary and diagenetic processes?

SCE is merely the mechanism of sediment diversity. Transportation and deposition are a result of the sum of all processes involved in the event as well as all geologic processes occurring thereafter. What follows are logical processes that would stem from the Hydroplate scenario which will help describe the world that we should expect to see as a result.

When, the subterranean water began to decompress, it precipitated the atomized constituents of basalt and granite somewhat evenly beneath the crust because SCW expands like a gas. But the ruptured granite plate would undergo fluctuation and deformity from the movement beneath and cause erratic changes in the pressure of the water below. Re-dissolution and re-precipitation resulted in a cyclic and sporadic fashion.

The particles in solution would escape with the water, of course, while the already precipitated particles would be carried to the surface by the force of the eruption along with whole chunks of basalt and granite. Below five miles of rock, the pressure is so great that granite deforms like putty. Therefore, fluctuating water pressure scoured out portions of granite, basalt, and various constituents thereof. At the edges of the fissure, the lower half of the ten-mile-thick granite crust continually oozed out into the ejection stream from the shear weight of rock above where it also was quickly eroded and lifted by the water.

The resulting aqueous ejecta and rubble initially achieved escape velocity. But as the force of this eruption gradually diminished, aqueous ejecta merely lingered in orbit for varying periods of time, agglomerated somewhat in the low gravity environment, and fell back to earth at temperatures near absolute zero. The larger agglomerates were better able to sustain these cold core temperatures during re-entry than the smaller ones and served to cool the earth while the smaller projectiles melted and/or evaporated.

Therefore, accumulation of this ejecta on the earth's surface served to cool as well as muffle the latter part the eruption. Strong currents of hot and muddy subterranean water contended with the plummeting ice and rock as the subterranean release continued underwater in various spots along the new continental edges. As this subterranean water depleted, the granite crust effectively 'deflated' and sank down through the tossing waves. Portions of this receding granite came into contact with the basalt beneath, generating friction as it slid, and created pockets of mineral- and moisture-rich magma. Massive tsunamis which were unimpeded by shorelines encircled the globe multiple times. The wave action generated cyclic pressure changes underwater which acted on the new sediments through a process called liquefaction.

Normally, liquefaction refers to the liquefying of already deposited sediment through earthquakes or wave action. But in our scenario, the sediments were not yet deposited but were still suspended in the flood water and settling during the liquefaction event. Giant wave action, however, characterized more clearly as wandering swells of smaller waves, caused a cyclic compression on the sediments as they were slowly deposited onto the whole surface of the earth. The weight of the peaks of these waves compressed water down through the settling sediment and into the crustal surface. Conversely, the troughs of the waves weighed less and allowed the water below to decompress and flow upward, which then lifted particles to varying degrees according to their individual physical properties.

When the pore pressure between particles exceeds the contact pressure, separation occurs, and a solid structure begins to act like a liquid, such as quicksand. This is called liquefaction and commonly occurs as a cyclic process of suspension/compression that allows repeated, yet deliberate migration of constituents based on surface area, granularity, specific gravity, etc. through the overwhelming of contact pressure by pore pressure. In the case of earthquakes, we can see water which is lighter than sediment rising to the surface (sand volcanos), while buildings which are heavier than sediment sink down into it.

What is soil liquefaction
Liquefaction During the Flood

Given the amount of eroded basalt and granite, as well as precipitated minerals, the flood water probably rode atop a hot sludge very similar to quicksand. Wave peaks pushed down on the sediments, compressing soft particles such as clay, and loading sediment pores with pressure while also reinforcing the contact pressure. As the wave troughs passed, the contact pressure decreased and the stored pore pressure was released. This pressure change sent water back up through the deposited sediment, lifting each particle. Wave action also caused water to oscillate laterally as pressure flowed away from the wave peaks and toward the troughs. So the wave action not only sifted the sediments according to their physical properties, but also 'kneaded' the sediments laterally.

Wave Motion
Swell (ocean) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particles with similar physical attributes experienced similar lifting force, or drag, from liquefaction, and 'travelled' as a group. The differing sediments in suspension, therefore, gradually separated from each other because they experienced different amounts of drag. At the onset of a compression cycle, particles were squeezed together and the pores were reloaded with pressure. Liquefaction, then, effectively sorted the sediments vertically according to their physical attributes, through the upward flow of decompression, into sharply defined layers that we know today as the strata. Some under-developed strata, which resemble graded bedding, are the interrupted 'proto-splitting' of a stratum into smaller strata. Other strata were over-developed in the sense that sediments subdivided so many times as to leave repetitive sequences of strata called rhythmic bedding.

Another interesting characteristic of the liquefaction process is the forming of water lenses. Particles that exhibited higher resistance to upward flow rose higher from the absorption of more upward force. So as particles were sorted, decompressing water flowed around the sediments beneath at a noticeably faster rate than around the sediments above. Therefore, when the water pushed up through these newly layered sediments, the resistance would 'always' increase from changes in granularity. This change in velocity formed bottlenecks, and produced a buildup of upward flowing water between layers which lifted upper layers slightly above the lower ones. These lenses appeared intrasequentially, meaning they formed through continual subdivision of strata, making possible the formation of rhythmic bedding mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Vegetation and animals rode upward into water lenses because the weight of suspended sediments increased the buoyancy of the water within it. Once in a lense, large objects tended to stay there because the weight of the upper layer counteracted the buoyancy of the lense beneath. However, animal carcasses that were very buoyant (or still alive) could possibly push up into and through some layers until the increasingly strickened flow of water became to weak to aid the carcass' buoyancy in overcoming the next sedimentary layer. Vegetation was not so capable of traversing the strata because it would intertwine with other vegetation soon upon entering a water lense. Moreover, the formation of a vegetation mat exaggerated the bottlenecking effect of its own lense by hindering upward flow.

The granite crust slowly contracted and thickened within the span of a few months. The thicker the granite got, the more it weighed per square mile, and the more it pushed down into the basalt below. As a result, the basalt began to deform first downward beneath the continents and then upward in between them, where the oceanic ridges are today. The upheaval of ridges in turn pushed back on the receding granite, which then sank deeper, pushing up more basalt, etc. in a continuous cycle of continental thickening. The mid-oceanic ridges are actually tensional failures caused by the expansion of the basalt. Tensional failures called fracture zones which are perpendicular to these ridges appeared due to the curvature of the earth. The somewhat consistent delineation of the ridges at fracture zones denote their order of appearance.

The enormous weight of the granite crust which initially began the contraction process was also responsible for stopping it. When isostasy was reached, the weight of the granite no longer aided the momentum of contraction, but instead countered it. This event no doubt caused an unfathomable amount of earthquaking, and the granite crust began to experience compression failures from the collision of momentum and gravity. The upper five miles of granite, the hard rock we are familiar with, faulted from compression while the lower granite simply billowed downward. Also, the arc of the continents around the curvature of the earth decreased as they shrank to occupy less of the globe's surface area. This shrinkage and flattening is responsible for the formation of the earth's mountain ranges.

And as the granite slowed, friction was transferred upward through the saturated strata which, depending on the level of lubrication, either slid easily or experienced drag. The upward transfer of friction through the layers caused deformation within and between some layers of sediment such as wedge- and cross-bedding, chevrons, etc. Lower layers experienced more friction being closer to the crust and suffered deformation similar to the granite crust beneath, while strata above slippage planes remained more horizontal, forming spectacular discontinuities such as the well-known Great Unconformity.

The saturated strata also experienced a massive, singular incident of liquefaction when the continents compressed. This time, weight of overlying water was not so much a factor as was the weight of the sediments themselves. The sediments collided toward the geographic center of the continents, squeezing most of the underground water in the opposite direction through the path of least resistance. This lateral instance of liquefaction is why horizontal strata can sometimes exhibit lateral gradation. Where water lenses still existed they were exaggerated and served as channels to extract water from the compressing sediments. Escaping currents in water lenses formed a host of stratigraphic features, such as current bedding, ripple marks, intraformational conglomerates, swash and rill marks, flute casts, etc. Fault lines and anticlines also appeared during the continental compression as well as foliations, thrust faults, and diagenetic metamorphisms.

As the contracting granite thickened, the waters began to pour off the rising continent toward the both ocean basins and continental basins. The lenses of water between the new strata began to collapse, pushing the contained water upward and outward. Obviously, during this major runoff, the newly stratified ground was still saturated and uncemented, allowing much of the surface erosion we see today to occur more quickly and easily than would normally be expected. Canyons and valleys were cut very rapidly in the soft earth. Niagara Falls has been calculated at a linear rate to have spent 12 ka travelling to its present location, but this calculation would shrink drastically to account for the concurrent and relatively recent cementing of the sediments. Similar rate-of-process adjustments would have to be made for the rest of earth's natural formations as well, effectively 'unearthing' the assumption that geological processes have always occurred at presently observed rates.

Large lakes formed in the continental basins and left behind traces that we call 'paleolakes.' Minor laminations and turbidities formed in these lakes through the further settling and liquefaction of solutes. This remnant water cooled slowly releasing more solutes from suspension at a very high rate, which then settled to the bottoms of these protolakes where they experienced more liquefaction to a lesser degree but for a prolonged duration. In addition, gradual cementation of the sediments resulted as reviving vegetation acted on the carbon cycle by depleting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (and oceans,) which then caused further precipitation of calcite in various forms such as limestone throughout various parts of the geological record. Here also is the proposed mechanism for calcareous fossil deposits such as oolites, biostromes, and bioherms. Where subsurface water existed that contained magnesium, whether from the erosion of granite or biological secretion, concretion resulted alternatively in dolomite.

These 'soft-earth' processes and more are to be covered in more detail in subsequent essays later in this thread. Other significant topics of interest to be discussed in detail are the oceanic trenches, island chains, observed plate movements, submarine canyons, the Grand Canyon, the Green River deposits, Monument Valley, the Petrified Forest, and miscellaneous cavern formations.

The very precise textural, structural and compositional character of sedimentary rocks matches what we see being formed in today's environments. Different environment - different sediment.

I found that statement incredibly audacious. Unexplained or debated formations are not that hard to dig up. Here are some that relate specifically to this post.

Microscopic diamonds crack geologic mold - diamonds found in continental crust challenge geological theory Science News - Find Articles
Explanation of Dolomite and "the Dolomite Problem"
Snowball Earth theory unsuccessfully attempts to explain 'glacial' dropstones near the equator.
Plume theory fight erupts
Mechanisms of Cement Precipitation and the Quartz Problem''
NOVA | Mystery of the Megaflood | Fantastic Floods | PBS

Is there any evidence, whatsoever, that shows deposition from SC steam extraction duplicating known sediments or rocks in terms of texture, structure, etc.

I would speculate that large deposits of fine grains of sand or salt such as the Sahara Desert or the Bonneville Salt Flats are particularly telling. When SCW decompresses, it's phase changes to gas, so solutes are precipitated completely dry. And since there aren't usually any accompanying source formations for all this sand or salt, modern theorists usually resort to invoking large amounts of water to serve as a transportation mechanism and then call it evidentiary of plate tectonics.

Utah's Great Salt Lake and Ancient Lake Bonneville, PI39 - Utah Geological Survey
Great Salt Lake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the Living Africa: the land - Sahara Desert - Physical Features
A Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial Climatic Correlation between East Africa and Europe
Mud Mounds
Supercritical Fluids at PNNL

Quartz is a major constituent of granite, forming up to 25% of the rock. Most sandstones are made of quartz, the source of which is granite. Some of this quartz, in sandstones is caught up in orogenesis (mountain building) where it stressed and heated. Later, eroded it again finds itself in a sandstone, but it now bears the marks of its burial in a regional metamorphic zone.

How does the Hydroplate theory account for these different types of quartz being present in sandstones? How does the super critical mechanism mimic processes that are occur in a wholly different environment?

Since I don't know which exact formation you're referring to, I can't pretend to have an exact explanation. I can only leave you with some basic mechanisms and drop some hints as to possible scenarios. The scouring action of the subterranean release alone presents adequate heat and pressure required for diagenetic quartz deposits as well as other oddities such as columnar-jointed basalts. Add to that the heat, pressure, and quaking of the continental compression and you have a couple different mechanisms to choose from, depending on each incidence of detailed analysis of course.

It may be expedient for tectonic theorists to conclude diagenesis occurs in vastly separated processes, since there are certain boundaries as to what can be considered a naturally occurring process. But, it is more reasonable to conclude that diagenetic deposits are evidence of concurrent processes. We have quartz deposits bearing scars of pressure and heat that are located where tectonics provides no such mechanisms. So we call it evidentiary that said minerals were transported by unverified processes to where the mechanisms do exist and back? Then we state emphatically that the existence of anomalous deposits verifies this unseen transportation mechanism? They would compliment each other of course, the anomaly and the theory, if better explanations did not exist.

But, as I have laid out above, the Hydroplate Theory can explain with exquisite precision this apparent concurrence of different processes without the aid of time, chance, or unobserved processes. Both the temperatures of subduction and the pressures of orogeny are available to the hydroplate eruption. And more importantly, the Hydroplate Theory can satisfy the erosion, transportation, and deposition mechanisms empirically.

### #43 silverslith

silverslith

Questioning

• Members
• 216 posts

Posted 08 April 2007 - 06:14 PM

Southtown,

How would you account for:
-layers of volcanic lava deposited in the middle of your sedimentary layers.
-radiologic dating of different layers showing long time scales of formation.
-different species fossils at different depths rather than the same ones distributed throughout the depths of different strata
-the inability of granite to contain and build up your supercritical layer due to its penetrating ability that you have stated.
-the variations in thickness not leading your "putty like" granite to fail in the thin areas and produce the geothermal or volcanic activity we know so well.
- the serious problem of less dense material staying under higher density stuff.
...

Actually, don't bother answering any of those and I decided to stop rather than list pages more because I've seen little effort or ability to make logical or rational observations from you on this thread or respond to other peoples VERY logical and rational evidence and querys in any way other than belief based nonsense. I've seen this theory before and it is the puppy of the most extreme creationists who believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago and any evidence to the contrary was put there by God to "test our faith and weed out the non-believers"

The basis of science is the principle of fallibility. Believing in something so firmly that you can't take anything into your head that is evidence to the contrary is called faith.
I vote that this thread go to strange claims. I hope no one gave you any rep points for this thread.

### #44 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 10 April 2007 - 08:23 PM

Actually, don't bother answering any of those and I decided to stop rather than list pages more because I've seen little effort or ability to make logical or rational observations from you on this thread or respond to other peoples VERY logical and rational evidence and querys in any way other than belief based nonsense. I've seen this theory before and it is the puppy of the most extreme creationists who believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago and any evidence to the contrary was put there by God to "test our faith and weed out the non-believers"

The basis of science is the principle of fallibility. Believing in something so firmly that you can't take anything into your head that is evidence to the contrary is called faith.
I vote that this thread go to strange claims. I hope no one gave you any rep points for this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to invite both evidence to the contrary and comments regarding the supposed evidence in support. I am not here to preach. Also, could you please point out to me where I haven't adequately responded to others? I would appreciate it. And thank you for your questions, by the way.

How would you account for:
-layers of volcanic lava deposited in the middle of your sedimentary layers.
-radiologic dating of different layers showing long time scales of formation.
-different species fossils at different depths rather than the same ones distributed throughout the depths of different strata
-the inability of granite to contain and build up your supercritical layer due to its penetrating ability that you have stated.
-the variations in thickness not leading your "putty like" granite to fail in the thin areas and produce the geothermal or volcanic activity we know so well.
- the serious problem of less dense material staying under higher density stuff.

• All magma would have been generated by the movement of continental crust. The compressive end of said movement led to faulting. Pressurized magma would then be squeezed up by this event. Obviously, if magma were pushed up, a plume would push up through the strata. And if water lenses still existed, lateral seepage is a reasonable expectation. Depending on the water temperature near the contorting granite, a duration of liquefaction could have effected the situation. And then there's the drainage event... To say for certainty requires further inspection of specific occurrences, of course.
• I don't have an exact answer for radiometric dating, yet. I speculate, though, that the deciding factor will have to do with the different mechanism of formation of sediment and perhaps maybe deposition as well. The Hydroplate would either have to show how daughter isotopes could survive creation or be introduced more rapidly than expected during deposition.
• Fossils have different physical properties on which liquefation would have operated. I touched on animals traversing the strata according to their buoyancy in my last post, but I failed to show how that can appear as an evolutionary record. Additionally, I explained how water lenses would tend to be their final resting place, but I failed to note that this would appear to us as a series of mass extinctions.
• The surface tension would be equal throughout the layer, hence the resting of thicker portions of granite on the basalt floor. The granite was ten miles thick, while the water was seven and a half percent of that. In my mind, the supercritical layer would have been totally absorbed by rock before reaching the surface, to the extent at least that the properties of either remained unaffected.
• How do you mean fail? The granite acts like putty at the pressures comparable to those below five miles of rock. That means that a gap would close itself. The failure is said to have been at the surface as a result of building heat.
• The less dense material did not stay there. How it got there is a mystery of course. But I'm interested in the geological implications of such a 'hypothetical' scenario and whether or not they are observed.

### #45 silverslith

silverslith

Questioning

• Members
• 216 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 02:12 AM

The purpose of this thread is to invite both evidence to the contrary and comments regarding the supposed evidence in support. I am not here to preach. Also, could you please point out to me where I haven't adequately responded to others? I would appreciate it. And thank you for your questions, by the way.

In response to your good humour to my exasperation I'm going to reply. I do think that this is a waste of both our time that would be much better spent in the advance of knowledge and understanding. You need to be careful about giving answers that though they may not be your own are very loosely based at best on the properties of materials.

[list][*]All magma would have been generated by the movement of continental crust. The compressive end of said movement led to faulting. Pressurized magma would then be squeezed up by this event.

the magma is near 1000 times thicker than the crust and so its ridiculous to make this statement.

Obviously, if magma were pushed up, a plume would push up through the strata.

Its under 60000+ psi of pressure from the crust sitting on it, and being somewhat liquid will find any way to escape this pressure.

Neither do the proponents of this theory. They simply deny that it has any validity without any scientific basis.

Fossils have different physical properties on which liquefation would have operated. I touched on animals traversing the strata according to their buoyancy in my last post, but I failed to show how that can appear as an evolutionary record. Additionally, I explained how water lenses would tend to be their final resting place, but I failed to note that this would appear to us as a series of mass extinctions

you mentioned these things several times but you are ignoring the fact that the fossil record contains everything from microscopic to large fossils at every depth with very clear evolutionary paths connecting them.

.[*]The surface tension would be equal throughout the layer, hence the resting of thicker portions of granite on the basalt floor. The granite was ten miles thick, while the water was seven and a half percent of that. In my mind, the supercritical layer would have been totally absorbed by rock before reaching the surface, to the extent at least that the properties of either remained unaffected.

If the layer of granite was uniform in thickness and properties to the microscopic level this may be the case. The 60000 pounds per sq inch mass of the 10 mile thick granite would force the "legs" into the basalt or squash them as they are "putty like". A water layer, supercritical or not would have no percievable effect on this.

[*]How do you mean fail? The granite acts like putty at the pressures comparable to those below five miles of rock. That means that a gap would close itself.

No. The 60000 psi water would have less mass above it pressurising it at any spot where the granite is thinner. This means it will flow upward thru the "putty like granite" (or even fully solid granite) like a blob of oil rising in a lava lamp.

The failure is said to have been at the surface as a result of building heat

how you think a uniform unfractured layer of granite formed all around the earth so it could sustain serious tensile loads is a major problem. Tensile loads on it at all are a major problem when it has a mass of 60000 pounds x (the area of the earths surface in square inches)

.[*]The less dense material did not stay there. How it got there is a mystery of course. But I'm interested in the geological implications of such a 'hypothetical' scenario and whether or not they are observed.

Nope. No problem at all. God created it in its entirety like that because:
1. He has a superintelligent sense of humour and wanted to poke some serious stick at humans who thought they could learn about the universe.
2. He is all knowing and so knew that life on earth was going to need a steam bath to drive some faith into them.

I hope this clears some stuff up for you.

### #46 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 11:48 PM

All magma would have been generated by the movement of continental crust. The compressive end of said movement led to faulting. Pressurized magma would then be squeezed up by this event.

the magma is near 1000 times thicker than the crust and so its ridiculous to make this statement.

Sorry, I misstated. Magma between the basalt and granite crusts was generated by the movement of the continents. The magma below the lithosphere was generated by the subsequent deformation of basalt. This will be the topic of my next essay. Walt does the math on his site, so it should be interesting.

Obviously, if magma were pushed up, a plume would push up through the strata.

Its under 60000+ psi of pressure from the crust sitting on it, and being somewhat liquid will find any way to escape this pressure.

I was referring to surface magma generated within the continental crust during compression. That's the supposed mechanism behind continental (and some oceanic) volcanism. An obvious exception would be the oceanic ridge.

Fossils have different physical properties on which liquefation would have operated. I touched on animals traversing the strata according to their buoyancy in my last post, but I failed to show how that can appear as an evolutionary record. Additionally, I explained how water lenses would tend to be their final resting place, but I failed to note that this would appear to us as a series of mass extinctions

you mentioned these things several times but you are ignoring the fact that the fossil record contains everything from microscopic to large fossils at every depth with very clear evolutionary paths connecting them.

Well, I would argue the presence of clear paths. More accurately, there is an apparent progression. This is explained by the Hydroplate as being a consequence of the density of the carcasses, in relation to shape, which could very well seperate reptiles, birds, and mammals because the members of each group share certain biological characteristics, such as birds having hollow bones.

The surface tension would be equal throughout the layer, hence the resting of thicker portions of granite on the basalt floor. The granite was ten miles thick, while the water was seven and a half percent of that. In my mind, the supercritical layer would have been totally absorbed by rock before reaching the surface, to the extent at least that the properties of either remained unaffected.

If the layer of granite was uniform in thickness and properties to the microscopic level this may be the case. The 60000 pounds per sq inch mass of the 10 mile thick granite would force the "legs" into the basalt or squash them as they are "putty like". A water layer, supercritical or not would have no percievable effect on this.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. I was implying that SCW could have diffused before it travelled to the surface or maybe even changed the properties of the granite by disseminating its constituents.

How do you mean fail? The granite acts like putty at the pressures comparable to those below five miles of rock. That means that a gap would close itself.

No. The 60000 psi water would have less mass above it pressurising it at any spot where the granite is thinner. This means it will flow upward thru the "putty like granite" (or even fully solid granite) like a blob of oil rising in a lava lamp.

Not really. SCW changes density readily with pressure (wiki), so it may have been more similar to granite than we imagine. Also, depending on the temperature, it could have been a supersolid which I think is still a sketchy subject.

The failure is said to have been at the surface as a result of building heat

how you think a uniform unfractured layer of granite formed all around the earth so it could sustain serious tensile loads is a major problem. Tensile loads on it at all are a major problem when it has a mass of 60000 pounds x (the area of the earths surface in square inches)

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. This is just a thought experiment; an exercise in critical thinking, as Buffy put it. I'm simply interested in contemplating the results of such a scenario.

### #47 silverslith

silverslith

Questioning

• Members
• 216 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:27 AM

Fine, but I'm completely over it. Theres no way that water can exist at that depth without being forced into the microscopic structure of the rock or magma. The granite would be under enormous lateral compression as well as vertical due to its mass acting like an arch or dome. The water could not supply pressure to overcome this at any conceivable temperature by a very large margin. Even if god created it like this he'd have to make the granite temporarily far less heavy to crack it and the fossil argument is complete balony due to huge spreads of "density" and size every age and animals that have been around up to 250 million years until now. This is entirely predicated on the unshakable belief some poor individuals suffer from that the earth and solar system (universe?) were created instantly ~5000 years ago. You could discuss it as a psychological disturbance but not a geologic theory. The mass extinction water lense hogwash is indicative of their total lack of any touch with reality as there aren't any mass collections of fossils at mass extinction events. just a sudden unexpected lack of large ones for a few million years. The sort of thing we can expect now if we don't stop wasting time on loony distractions like this one. Thats me. best of luck finding anyone else to talk to about it. You could find some refutations on the web and argue with yourself.
• InfiniteNow likes this

### #48 silverslith

silverslith

Questioning

• Members
• 216 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:24 PM

You can get an idea of what temperature would be involved with the ideal gas law that states that pressure is proportional to temperature at fixed volume.

starting with TempSCW=647K and PressureSCW=3000psi:

TReq to lift 10miles of granite= 647K x (60000psi/3000psi)
= 647K x 20

=12940K
= 12666 degrees C

You won't have putty like granite or basalt at this temp What you may well have is supercritical gaseous Rock!
and you would need a lot lot lot more temperature to overcome the tensile strength of the granite if it were solid, and not a vapour as this indicates.
I vote we rename this the Baloney from Hogwashing theory in honour of the steamed and pickled pigs.

### #49 Southtown

Southtown

differentiating

• Members
• 1922 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 10:01 PM

Theres no way that water can exist at that depth without being forced into the microscopic structure of the rock or magma. The granite would be under enormous lateral compression as well as vertical due to its mass acting like an arch or dome. The water could not supply pressure to overcome this at any conceivable temperature by a very large margin...

No magma at this point. When I say the granite was putty-like, I refer to its ability to react to pressure differences. Just as putty deforms in your fist towards areas of lower pressure, so did this granite. The pressure was great enough that the granite flowed toward the path of least resistance. This is an atomic phenomenon known as creep. (wiki) Any water molecules caught up in this process would be affected in the same manner, I would think.

...the fossil argument is complete balony due to huge spreads of "density" and size every age and animals that have been around up to 250 million years until now.

Are you describing the fossil record, or the current biorealm?

...there aren't any mass collections of fossils at mass extinction events. just a sudden unexpected lack of large ones for a few million years.

I stand corrected.

The sort of thing we can expect now if we don't stop wasting time on loony distractions like this one. Thats me. best of luck finding anyone else to talk to about it. You could find some refutations on the web and argue with yourself.

All it would take is empirical evidence showing an old age for the earth. From observations astronomers deduce a big bang theory, but where did the singularity come from? Is it all that existed? Has it existed before? Is the system open or closed? Questions like these don't keep proponents from working on the theory.

You can get an idea of what temperature would be involved with the ideal gas law that states that pressure is proportional to temperature at fixed volume.

Being unfamiliar with that law, I looked it up, and that formula ignores internal energy. I may be wrong, but that would seem to be increasingly relevant with either pressure or heat.

Ideal Gas Law
Phase diagram of water and ice
Internal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You won't have putty like granite or basalt at this temp What you may well have is supercritical gaseous Rock!

What makes a substance supercritical is the absence of a boiling point. It actually turns into a gas, but it is under so much pressure that some atoms are compressed back into a liquid state. This is what makes SCF change density with pressure. And now that I think of it, internal energy is highly relevant to this scenario because it would be increasingly ionized from lunar tides.

http://www.iupac.org...f/5901x0025.pdf
Supercritical fluid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an aside, the changing water pressure caused by gravitational pumping will affect the SCF's diffusivity and solubility making it absorb and precipitate the constituents of granite or basalt. This would line the 'walls' of the inner chambers with layers of quartz, calcite, etc.

### #50 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 12 April 2007 - 10:19 PM

This is speculation,hardly science, if at all.
Science relies on repeatable observations/data. These contradictions you describe are not mirrored in our present observability.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

### #51 maikeru

maikeru

Explaining

• Members
• 794 posts

Posted 13 April 2007 - 04:22 AM

Being unfamiliar with that law, I looked it up, and that formula ignores internal energy. I may be wrong, but that would seem to be increasingly relevant with either pressure or heat.

Ideal Gas Law

You're wrong. The equation *does* include internal energy. The internal energy of the atoms or molecules of the gas is in the form of kinetic energy, which then is related to temperature. Any change in internal energy then changes temperature. This is mentioned clearly in your first link.

What makes a substance supercritical is the absence of a boiling point. It actually turns into a gas, but it is under so much pressure that some atoms are compressed back into a liquid state. This is what makes SCF change density with pressure. And now that I think of it, internal energy is highly relevant to this scenario because it would be increasingly ionized from lunar tides.

http://www.iupac.org...f/5901x0025.pdf
Supercritical fluid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, what makes a substance supercritical is not the absence of a boiling point. Boiling point is the temperature at which a liquid can change its state into that of a gas. Supercritical fluids are neither liquid nor gas, but rather a fluid state maintained by high temperatures and pressures that push the substance out of the liquid and gas regions (states) of its phase diagram. The substance is in another fluid phase with the properties of both gases and liquids. Because the internal energy of these particles/molecules/atoms are so high, so are their collective kinetic energy, which influences heat and pressure (and is why SCF have such high temperature and pressure values). In this state, the substance's particles are moving so fast, are so chaotically random, and are so constrained by pressure to a certain volume, that they seem like they're on "thermodynamic steroids."