Hydroplate Theory

[Boerseun]

Stereo, he did say "the continents as we see them", which clearly means the physical layout - not the physical composition. "How we see the continents" is different than "what the continents are made of".

 

There are rocks in the Canadian shield that are billions of years old, and the Canadian shield have survived being piggy-backed on Pangaea, and all the subsequent continental layouts since, all the way to eventually being carried along on the North American plate, which is a piece of the original continent on which the Canadian shield was deposited.

 

I fail to see the mystery.

[stereologist]

Nice post Moontanman. I often ask the question by saying, "What is alive today? Is it trout or sharks?"

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, what about the Canadian shield? The rocks are in the order of billions of years old, likely over 3.5 billion. There are examples of rocks with ages in the billions of years old in many parts of the world including Greenland and Australia.

 

I understand that the existence of rocks does not mean the existence of continents. On the other hand here is a write up on early crustal formation:

The Oldest Rock on Earth: Ancient Continental Crust Still Exists Today | Suite101.com

 

or here from CalTech http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu8BW3aVKpVgBJ.ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByZmU2MmgwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12h9eda82/EXP=1252470486/**http%3a//www.gps.caltech.edu/~enadin/Writing/ES_OldestCrust.pdf

 

I said as we see them stereo ;) As we see them the continents are only a few tens of millions of years old at best. :)

[Moontanman]

Thanks stereo, as I see it the idea of why the earths aquatic animals survived along with where did the water go is the two biggest problems with this theory.

[Michaelangelica]

So, i live on the oldest, most stable, bit of rock on the planet.

Did we miss this? Probably drunk at the time

Still it would be mice if there was still a bit of water down there we would drill for it (once we got past all the bloody oil). :)

 

Canada older than Australia? NBL!

Oldest terrestrial material

The oldest material of terrestrial origin that has been dated is a zircon mineral of 4,404 ± 8 Ma enclosed in a metamorphic gneiss in the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia.

The 4,404 ± 8 Ma zircon is a slight outlier, with the oldest consistently-dated zircon falling closer to 4.35 Ma.[4] This zircon is part of a population of zircons within the gneiss of greater than 3,900 Ma; the gneiss is considered to be no older than 3,800 Ma, which is the age of the youngest zircon in the ro

. . .

Recent research

The zircons from the Western Australian Jack Hills returned an age of 4.404 billion years, interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons also show another interesting feature; their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth.

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_rock

 

We even have some living bacteria 3.5MYO

http://australia-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/shark_bays_stromatolites_in_wa

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

[stereologist]

I understand now. I was reading far too fast trying to catch up.

[Southtown]

Well since the dinosaur fossils was your idea..... It is indeed possible for microorganisms to be spread from one planet to another via rocks thrown by an impact.

Ya, but bones landing on other planets intact is another story entirely, right?

 

No Southtown that is not how it works, an asteroid would not spiral down and even if for some "ungodly" reason it did it would leave a crater, at the most extreme it might leave an oval crater but no gouges no valleys, no chunks making mountains.

K, say it was a large comet that grazed the planet, and then partially rained back down. Input?

 

When was this supposed to have happened?

Moontanman is correct. The hydroplate theory does place the eruption event ~5k years ago.

 

I missed a bunch of posts - been out of town. Did we ever get the math that shows that the volume of the comets is greater than 10 times the volume of the earth?

My search returned two drastically different answers. First, this one from 1985 which claims 2% solar mass which projects the size of the theorized Oort cloud based on probability. Second, this one (powerpoint slide 16) says the Kuiper Belt is ~10% earth mass. The hydroplate theory says there is no Oort Cloud, and that short period comets are flung outward by the gas giants instead of inward, so any supposed Oort mass would be inapplicable.

“

What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them

[comets falling from an Oort cloud]

by its gravity and tame them into short-period, prograde orbits? He

[H. A. Newton]

found that the chance is very small. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter’s period of 11.86 years.

” Fred L. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), p. 75.

[Moontanman]

Ya, but bones landing on other planets intact is another story entirely, right? :)

 

'fraid so

 

K, say it was a large comet that grazed the planet, and then partially rained back down. Input?

 

Nope not comets either.

 

Moontanman is correct. The hydroplate theory does place the eruption event ~5k years ago.

 

 

 

My search returned two drastically different answers. First, this one from 1985 which claims 2% solar mass which projects the size of the theorized Oort cloud based on probability. Second, this one (powerpoint slide 16) says the Kuiper Belt is ~10% earth mass. The hydroplate theory says there is no Oort Cloud, and that short period comets are flung outward by the gas giants instead of inward, so any supposed Oort mass would be inapplicable.

“

What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them

[comets falling from an Oort cloud]

by its gravity and tame them into short-period, prograde orbits? He

[H. A. Newton]

found that the chance is very small. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter’s period of 11.86 years.

” Fred L. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), p. 75.

 

Kuiper belt and Ort cloud are two completely different things. What does the hydroplate people base the outrageous claim that there is no ort cloud on? any evidence other than it just can't be that way? How do the giant planets get comets to fling outward? Where do the comets come from?

[Moontanman]

Southtown, care to answer my two questions of this theory?

 

See post #185

[Southtown]

Kuiper belt and Ort cloud are two completely different things. What does the hydroplate people base the outrageous claim that there is no ort cloud on? any evidence other than it just can't be that way? How do the giant planets get comets to fling outward? Where do the comets come from?

You misunderstand. The Oort has never been observed but is theorized to contain all the comets before they are flung inward by the gas giants. Hydroplate instead theorizes that the short-period comets (aggregate ejecta from earth) were flung outward by the gas giants along with solar radiation. The asteroid belt is assumed by hydroplate to consist of the same types of elements as comets but with a greater dust-to-water ratio making them harder to fling outward via gravitational interaction and more susceptible to the more evenly distributed solar wind.

 

“

A flaw in our understanding of the orbital evolution of comets is that the number of short-period comets—those with orbital periods less than 200 years, such as comet Halley—is much greater than theory predicts. The discrepancy is enormous; the observed number is two orders of magnitude larger than expected.

” Julia Heisler, “Orbital Evolution of Comets,” Nature, Vol. 324, 27 November 1986, p. 306.

[Moontanman]

Before we get any further into this Hydroplate theory how about answering the questions I posed in post #185? If those basic questions cannot be answered then the whole theory is total rubbish.

[stereologist]

My search returned two drastically different answers. First, this one from 1985 which claims 2% solar mass which projects the size of the theorized Oort cloud based on probability. Second, this one (powerpoint slide 16) says the Kuiper Belt is ~10% earth mass. The hydroplate theory says there is no Oort Cloud, and that short period comets are flung outward by the gas giants instead of inward, so any supposed Oort mass would be inapplicable.

 

The asteroid belt is assumed by hydroplate to consist of the same types of elements as comets but with a greater dust-to-water ratio making them harder to fling outward via gravitational interaction and more susceptible to the more evenly distributed solar wind.

 

Are you claiming that the asteroids were created by the hydroplate event?

[Moontanman]

You misunderstand. The Oort has never been observed but is theorized to contain all the comets before they are flung inward by the gas giants. Hydroplate instead theorizes that the short-period comets (aggregate ejecta from earth) were flung outward by the gas giants along with solar radiation. The asteroid belt is assumed by hydroplate to consist of the same types of elements as comets but with a greater dust-to-water ratio making them harder to fling outward via gravitational interaction and more susceptible to the more evenly distributed solar wind.

 

“

A flaw in our understanding of the orbital evolution of comets is that the number of short-period comets—those with orbital periods less than 200 years, such as comet Halley—is much greater than theory predicts. The discrepancy is enormous; the observed number is two orders of magnitude larger than expected.

” Julia Heisler, “Orbital Evolution of Comets,” Nature, Vol. 324, 27 November 1986, p. 306.

 

 

Are you saying the asteriods were ejected from the Earth too?

[stereologist]

Let's say that the 10% figure is correct. The earth has a specific gravity of 5.5. Therefore, the volume of water expelled from the earth to form the continents is:

10% (5.5) (1 earth) = .55 earth

 

The volume of water expelled was just over half of the size of the earth.

 

Let's put that into some manageable form.

 

That turns out to be around 800 times the volume of the Pacific ocean. Just 7 times the volume of the Pacific ocean covers the earth with enough water to inundate the top of Mt Everest.

 

Sounds like the hydroplate theory fails here and big.

[Michaelangelica]

 

 

Moontanman is correct. The hydroplate theory does place the eruption event ~5k years ago.

 

So it is fundamentalist christian "science" trying to justify someone's literal interpretation of the Bible.

So it is rubbish, thanks, bye.

[Southtown]

So it is fundamentalist christian "science" trying to justify someone's literal interpretation of the Bible.

So it is rubbish, thanks, bye.

Well, k, cya.

[Moontanman]

Come on Southtown, you received some real questions, can you answer them?