New geological discovery provides evidence to support hydroplate theory

Dr. Walt Brown has long propounded the theory of a global flood that issued not only from the skies above but primarily from deep subterranian oceans cataclysmically bursting. Now scientist have discovered what could be the remnants of such a subterranian ocean under China. They have also described a mechanism by which such an ocean could have developed on a much wider scale around the globe. link to story

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that has at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

With these new discoveries perhaps the idea of a global flood and the hydroplate theory needs another look.

One of the things that hydroplate theory predicts is that earthquakes are related to the settling of these underground remnant of subteranean oceans. This is also alluded to in the article.

"They thought it was very, very interesting," Wysession said. "China is under greater seismic risk than just about any country in the world, so they are very interested in seismology."

You can read up on hydroplate theory at this web site

As a side note to this discussion I would like to point out that hundreds of years ago real scientific innovation was scoffed due to the seemingly irreligious nature of the scientist. Today we have swung the pendulum the other way and real scientific innovation and theory is being scoffed because it comes from a source that is religious. History may well show that the secular strand of science has become as bigotted as the institutional church was many centuries ago.

good synopsis

there is also a thread here on this thopugh of limited coverage:

ATS OCEAN IN EARTH DISCOVERED

also of interest is another recent geoogical find that may be connected:

Scientists are to sail to the mid-Atlantic to examine a massive "open wound" on the Earth's surface.

Dr Chris MacLeod, from Cardiff University, said the Earth's crust appeared to be completely missing in an area thousands of kilometres across

BBC Scientists probe 'hole in Earth'

Maybe this might explain the route that the water is taking to get into porous material so deep down in the earths mantle.

interesting

regards

elf

This discovery does not support 'hydroplate' theory. Scientists have for a long time know that there are hydrous minerals in oceanic crust. YOu can't 'squeeze it' and have gushing fountains flood the earth.


Here is an interesting refutation of hydroplate theory, it doesn't jive with science, and it doesn't jive with the bible (and the only reason it exists is because of the bible).
home.entouch.net...

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the hydroplate theory suggested that there were subterranean chambers that were full of water.

These findings seem to suggest areas of mantle that is saturated with water. That is, wet rock, rather than subterranean chambers of water.

Maybe Walt could adjust his ideas...

I'd have to agree with Nygdan and melatonin here. More info:

Pro Hydroplate Theory (short version) (with animation/video) (longer version) As has already been noted/linked his entire book/theory is available for free online.

A good critque (best I've found online) is: The “Hydroplate Theory” of Dr. Walter Brown: A “Common Sense” Evaluation by Tom Couchman

While there are a few published articles about hydroplate theory which point out some of its shortcomings, there is apparently no online evaluation which shows conclusively why it will not work. The main purpose of this article is to show why it will not work.

I would like to point out that subterranean rocks that are saturated with liquid material can be provoked to violently erupt their liquid content if the pressure that is overbearing them is removed. I give as proof of this concept the gushers that were experienced by the oil industry as oilfields where tapped thus relieving the pressure that had held the oil in suspension in the rock sand and shale layers that contained them. Hence an "ocean" of water could be expected to do the same, especially considering that this water is probably heated as well as pressurized. As soon as this layer is breached it could create a self propagating pressure release that could evacuate a large amount of material in a short time. Think of a Mt. St Helens type eruption where pressure was suddenly released by the collapse of the overburden of rock.

Originally posted by Johannmon
I give as proof of this concept the gushers that were experienced by the oil industry as oilfields where tapped thus relieving the pressure that had held the oil in suspension in the rock sand and shale layers that contained them.

Yes, by drilling rigs. And notice that the gushers don't flood entire valleys, let along towns, states, countries, or planets.

Hence an "ocean" of water could be expected to do the same, especially considering that this water is probably heated as well as pressurized.

Its not even liquid in many cases, but rather a hydothermal alteration of minerals, adding hydroxide groups to their chemical structure.

Think of a Mt. St Helens type eruption where pressure was suddenly released by the collapse of the overburden of rock.

Its different though, the magma was present as a chamber. The water here is not present as a chamber.

And its the release of that much water that is itself a problem, it'd release so much energy that it'd sterilize the planet's surface.

Originally posted by Nygdan


And its the release of that much water that is itself a problem, it'd release so much energy that it'd sterilize the planet's surface.

You mean as in a giant flood that wipes out all life except for that which is saved by some supernatural means? hmmm sounds historical at least if the mythology of most ancient cultures is to be believed.

I would also like to interject that there is no proof that water has not pooled in pockets. They have found a layer with high concentrations of water in the rock. Because of the depth of the soundings they cannot conclusively determine the state of the water nor its exact confinement. The mechanism by which the water is released from the sinking rock has been hypothesized and seemingly confirmed by this discovery but because of the indirect nature of the evidence the exact details of state and nature are yet to be defined.

Originally posted by Johannmon
I would also like to interject that there is no proof that water has not pooled in pockets. They have found a layer with high concentrations of water in the rock. Because of the depth of the soundings they cannot conclusively determine the state of the water nor its exact confinement. The mechanism by which the water is released from the sinking rock has been hypothesized and seemingly confirmed by this discovery but because of the indirect nature of the evidence the exact details of state and nature are yet to be defined.

So, in essence, it doesn't really support Walt Brown at all?

They seem to show that areas of the mantle consist of soft rock, well softer than elsewhere. They hypothesise that these areas are hydrated areas of rock. I'm sure if they were open chambers of water, the seismic activity would show something rather different. I'm sure these guys would pick up the massive differences in physical properties of rock and chambers of copious amounts of liquid water.



They compare their methods to a CAT scan, and it's quite hard to mistake a CSF fluid filled ventricle and brain matter.

One of the most dramatic features in the Wysession et. al global mantle shear-wave attenuation model is a very high-attenuation anomaly at the top of the lower mantle beneath eastern Asia. This anomaly is believed due to water that has been pumped into the lower mantle via the long history of the subduction of oceanic lithosphere — crust and upper mantle — in this region. The left figure is a slice through the earth, showing the attenuation anomalies within the mantle. The location of the slice — red line in the upper right figure — is a map of the seismic attenuation at a depth of roughly 620 miles. In both images, red shows unusually soft and weak rock, and blue shows unusually stiff rock (yellow and white show near-average values). The two figures in the lower right are resolution tests to see if the data have the resolution to retrieve Earth structure in these parts of the Earth. The sharper the black-white transitions are, the better the resolution is. Credit: Washington University in St. Louis

www.physorg.com...

They also suggest around 0.1% concentration of water in these rocks.

So their findings don't really support extrapolation to Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. The authors infer soft rock, you want to infer chambers of water.



[edit on 1-3-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Nygdan
This discovery does not support 'hydroplate' theory. Scientists have for a long time know that there are hydrous minerals in oceanic crust. YOu can't 'squeeze it' and have gushing fountains flood the earth.


Here is an interesting refutation of hydroplate theory, it doesn't jive with science, and it doesn't jive with the bible (and the only reason it exists is because of the bible).
home.entouch.net...

Thanks for sharing that link. I didn't know there were people out there that actually thought Noahs Ark was a true story. I should venture onto the science boards more often!

Edit: I just realized i'm not even in the science boards. Where am i?!

[edit on 1-3-2007 by lizziex3]

Originally posted by Johannmon
You mean as in a giant flood that wipes out all life except for that which is saved by some supernatural means?

NO, I mean as in catastrophic energy releases that destroys the surface of the planet with superheated steam everywhere.

hmmm sounds historical at least if the mythology of most ancient cultures is to be believed.

That statement is a contradiction in terms. If we're beleiving the irrational myths of ancient cultures, then we're not practicing rational historical inquiry.

I would also like to interject that there is no proof that water has not pooled in pockets. [/quote
It can't pool in pockets. Its the mantle.

Because of the depth of the soundings they cannot conclusively determine the state of the water nor its exact confinement.

No, they stated what form the 'water' is in. Its not gigantic pools.

but because of the indirect nature of the evidence the exact details of state and nature are yet to be defined.

Its true, things could be different. But we need evidence to actually show that it is different before we say its different.

lizziex3
I didn't know there were people out there that actually thought Noahs Ark was a true story

The same people often think that Adam was a physical literal person married to a chick named Eve. They view genesis as literal history.

NO, I mean as in catastrophic energy releases that destroys the surface of the planet with superheated steam everywhere.

This is the very kind of dismissive attitude that is the result of antireligious scientific bias. With all due respect, I doubt you have worked up numbers on this nor have you considered mitigating scenarios in which the energy released could be absorbed by other than the atmosphere. Yet you dismiss the whole idea out of hand without investigation.

That statement is a contradiction in terms. If we're beleiving the irrational myths of ancient cultures, then we're not practicing rational historical inquiry.

So you are sayingthe myths of a culture have no bearing on the history of a culture nor basis in fact?! So why then are historians and archeologist searching for evidence to confirm the trojan wars since the only evidence we had of them as of a few hundred years ago was myth and legend. Why do we search for evidence of other mythical stories. The FACT is that most historical inquiry and investigation begins with a myth (oral story that has been passed down through many generations) and then seeks the facts concerning the myth. The older the story, the more convoluted its factual nature, but it is a tenant of historical inquiry that many, myths have their basis is factual events. It is also a tenant of historical inquiry that if a myth is shared by more than one culture the likelyhood of its factual beginnings goes up with each additional culture that shares the myth.

To dismiss myth as a basis for historical inquiry is to remove 90% of the leads that modern archeology has used to make discoveries. Again I have to wonder if this particular myth has been dismissed because of an antireligious bias.

No, they stated what form the 'water' is in. Its not gigantic pools

No they Hypothesised what for they thought the water would be in. Besides I never claimed the water was in gigantic pools, nor have I stated that Walt Brown has it all right in his theory. If the same standard being applied to Walt Browns hypothesis were to be applied to Darwins work, Darwin would have to be dismissed out of hand because he believed that the cell was a simple organism that could easily transmute. We have since learned much about celular make up. In fact we have learned so much that his theory has itself has had to evolve with the evidence. Yet rather than seeking what is possible and what could be true in the hypothesis of Walt Brown critics seek to dismiss it out of hand because they find flaws in the mosiac of the argument. Such dismissal does not foster the growth of understanding. Instead it fosters ignorance, which we are all dedicated to denying.

They compare their methods to a CAT scan, and it's quite hard to mistake a CSF fluid filled ventricle and brain matter.

Try discerning the difference when your CAT scan machine in several miles from your fluid filled ventricle and brain matter. Or if you like try discerning the difference after going through a mottled layer of fat, blood vessels and sinew that is say 1/4 mile thick. Your ability to discern the difference would be clouded and your results could easily be skewed by factors, within the fat layer that you do not take into consideration. Apples and Oranges

Originally posted by Johannmon
Apples and Oranges

It was the researchers themselves who made the comparison, take it up with them.

Johannmon

With all due respect, I doubt you have worked up numbers on this nor have you considered mitigating scenarios in which the energy released could be absorbed by other than the atmosphere.

Correct me if I'm wrong but ya'll are talking about the energy released by the splitting of the continents , correct? In other words we have to get from pangaea to our current set-up in under a year (mere days[?] according to hydoplate theory), requiring/releasing massive amounts of energy, correct? I believe that's why YEs argued, sans Brown of course, that the continents were never connected, ie "born seperate" (I'm sure I've heard Ham or Hovind argue it that way before)

Anyway this has come up before and ATSer Off_The_Street (an engineer) agreed that the energy required/released would have melted the crust... although he does admit that he had not "pencil-whipped" it.

He says www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here that (emphasis -Rren):

The plates move by convection; I haven’t pencil-whipped it, but the speed of masses moving due to convection (whether within the convective matrix or on its surface) is a function of the viscidity of the matrix and its temperature. Since the aesthenosphere hasn’t ever been anything but felsic and mafic magma, the only thing that would’ve caused plates to move that energetically would be a temperature probably higher than the vapor point of rock.

I can't find any numbers anywhere on-line but this page on "quantavolutionary theory" was interesting and some-what relevant I think:

Source

Most geologists and geophysicists today are satisfied that the heat generated and in part used to move the dozen plates of the world around is not so great as to make life impossible today or for a billion and more years past. A minority, as here, is not so sure. The issue is complex, technical, and abstract to the edge of pure speculation. This, however, is certain: an exoterrestrial and sub-aerial force can require less continuous heat and dissipate it more quickly; it operates with heat as more of a waste product than the key to the movement of the crust. The greatest portion of the heat given off to set the continents in motion would be explosive and would disappear into cold space with the exploded crust.

(emphasis -Rren)

The YE model has the continents moving at about 1mph, I believe, shouldn't a calculation to determine the energy reguired and released, in a YE time-frame, be fairly simple/straight-forward? "Easy" for somebody other than me that is. Perhaps Brown covered this specifically but I do not recall.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Rren]

Hydroplate theory does not use convection as its method of moving the crust of the earth. Rather the force is generated by gravity and is lubricated by the hydro-layer itself thus mitigating much of the friction and negating the need for extremely high convective temperatures to effect the movement. If you read Dr. Brown's theory you could understand this. Problem is those who seek to refute the theory out of hand have generally not even taken the time to understand what it implies. Hence the discussion of convective temperatures which is irrelevant to the theory of geology proposed by Dr. Brown.

Here is an interesting refutation of hydroplate theory, it doesn't jive with science, and it doesn't jive with the bible (and the only reason it exists is because of the bible).

After viewing the refutation that nygdan quoted I must say that the refuter is another in a long string of persons who has not given proper attention to understanding Hydroplate theory before attempting a refution. I will do my best to explain the inconsistancies here.

The author of the page has three main areas of refutation.

Mountains

Early colapse

and everybody cooks

The first point the author makes is that there could be no mountains because the flexing of the crust would cause the crust to crack and release the water in the subteranean chambers. This is actually dealt with by Brown in his theory in two ways.

First he states that the subteranean water layer was supported by large areas of solid rock or pillars. These pillars certainly would form where uplifts of land had their corresponding downthrusts. The cracking of the upper crust would not necessarily affect the seal in the lower crust. While the crust above 5 miles deep would crack under the strain for mountains the crust below 5 miles deep would not crack in the traditional sense due to the nature of rock under these kinds of pressures. Here is a quote from Brown's work.

Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface are so great that the rock can deform like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty. The slightest crack or opening could not open from below.

Brown does state that mountains in the preflood earth were less than 5000 feet high. Hydroplate theory goes on to explain how the current mountain ranges came to their heights.

Hence while all the nice mathematics seem very convincing they do not take into account the nature of geology and rock that is under pressure and hence do not represent a refutation of the theory.

The second line of refutation has to do with early colapse of the subteranian chambers due to friction between the crust and the core. The page author states

one must have pillars to retain the physical connection with the core.

He then goes on to talk about how the lack of these pillars would cause a colapse. This second line of refutation is particularly showing of the authors ignorance of hydroplate theory since in the introduction to the theory Dr. Brown states there were "extensive solid structues, called pillars that supported and connected the upper and lower levels of the water layer. The formation of these chambers is detailed in his work on Page 338-342. Hence in the original assumptions that underly the theory the necessary pillars are detailed.

The authors final point is that the release of water under such pressure would "cook" everone on the planet. The pages author does some well meaning arithmatic to show that the energy released. Unfortunatley the author uses some assumptions that do not hold up to the theory proposed. First is the volume of water in question. Hydroplate theory, nor Dr. Brown have never proposed a layer of water 2 km thick surround the globe. Second the temperature variant for todays crust is not uniform nor can it be assumed that todays temperature gradient is equivalent with what was preflood since the hydroplate event did release a massive amount of energy into the crust via friction in the post breach event. (take the time to read the theory to undertand this)

Skewed figures aside the refuter has also failed to take into account the fact that the flood event as described took place first at the bottom of the ocean, hence the whole sea would act as a heat sink for the event. Additionally the event would have been so cataclysmic that much of the energy would have been vented to the high upper atmosphere and even ejected into space. This by the way is also covered in Dr. Browns explanation of his hypothesis.

With these mitigating factors it is perfectly conceivable that the whole Earth would not be cooked. In fact the only thing baking here is the half baked attempt at a refutation of a theory that the author did not even bother to comprehend before dismissing. Bad science always begins with a closed mind and proceeds to prove itself right anyway.

Originally posted by Johannmon

After viewing the refutation that nygdan quoted I must say that the refuter is another in a long string of persons who has not given proper attention to understanding Hydroplate theory before attempting a refution. I will do my best to explain the inconsistancies here.

When I first read Nygdan's reference it looked convincing with all the scientific formulas and stuff but now I can see how it really doesn't apply. Great analysis of the anyalysis I agree that an open mind is the best way to find truth. I'm still not sure about the whole hydroplate theory thing but its worth more study. keep up the good work

You have voted Johannmon for the Way Above Top Secret award

[edit on 4-3-2007 by ashol]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Gemwolf]