Sorry son. Im a physicist. I have done those calculations. such an event 1. can’t launch things into space, even if you turn the water into instant steam. There isn’t enough energy contained in the high temperature water. Have your guy show his calculations, take a picture of the calculations and post it here. My bet is he doesn’t understand physics very well.
The closest thing we have to what you describe is a volcano which explosively erupts because the water inside the magma turns to steam, creating a pressure that blows the top off the volcano and then for some way down the vent, lava flowing upward has its water turned to steam. The highest they can shoot things up is 55 km. I think my calculations were on the order of the upper 40s km high.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gkiz3/could_a_volcano_eruption_theoretically_be/
Apart from that there is the stupidity that we are discussing Granite, about 2.6 kg/m^3 density being supported by a flowable fluid of 1 kg/m^3. Nature doesn’t like that situation, The weight of the granite would fall into that water almost instantly but I am playing your silly game. But this is the last response period. I am not interesting in deaing with people who know nothing but think they do.
Secondly your guy knows nothing about rock mechanics. Below is a picture of what would happen, the vertical tensile strength of the granite is not great. It is like what happens to ice in the arctic if you lift it up, it breaks close to the point you are lifting it up. Thus the reality is that most of the granite will ‘flapjack’ a word a geologist I worked with used. It means that they will rotate and land upside down a bit away from the break. and parts of the crust near your pillars will rotate down as shown below because they are having a lost of buoyancy event. As the water leaves the chamber, it isn’t there to support the granite crust and some of it will fall down.
I worked the last 20 years the offshore environment. I wish I could find the video which was passed around via email of a supply boat having a bubble of air coming up from the seafloor below it and the entire ship fell into that void and disappeared, only to pop up again in a few seconds. Good thing they had the ship battened down or they would have continued down. The white in the picture above is either the water having turned to steam or waater being drained from the edges and right along the edes the granite crust would experience a loss of buoyancy event. But your guy wouldn’t know anything about it.
The water eroded the bottom side of the granite crust as well as pummeling the granite that was collapsing into the jets of water on either side of the rupture. That is the source of sand and clay.
Obviously you didn’t read or believe what I said about diagenesis. What you would get is not sand and clay but arkosic sand. See, this is a good example of you NOT dealing with the science, which is why I quit talking to people with your view a few years ago. I just bang my head against the wall
This continued until the rupture became quite wide. Then beginning in the mid-Atlantic, the mantle sprang upward forming the mid oceanic ridge because of the great amount of mass that was removed. The earth is a vacuum, so the Pacific had to collapse downward, forming oceanic trenches around the Pacific. It has taken thousands of years since the glacier melted in North America and the uplift and subsidence from that weight being removed is still gong on. The mantle doesn’t move as fast as you think. Water has viscosity of .0001.
Sorry, the bolded part is just stupid. Do you or your guy have any idea what the viscosity of the mantle is? It doesn’t flow like water. sheesh–Go away and enjoy your ignorance. At times I wish I hadn’t gone into geology because I was as happy with YEC as you are but after 10 years of seeing data like I showed you I had to honestly admit there were serious problems. You can ignore things and have a make believe science and love your god. In a sense I envy your ignorance because what I learned cost me years of anguish doubt and trouble.
The continents slid down hill away from the Atlantic toward the Pacific riding on supercritical water until they ran out of lubricating water or hit resistance.
If you moved the continents that fast with 10^24 centipoise, the friction would vaporize the granite and large chunks of the mantle. Let me give you an idea of what how big that viscosity number is.
Here are various flowable substances and their viscosity in centipoise.
1 = Water
500 =#10 Motor Oil
2,500 =Pancake Syrup
10,000 =Honey
50,000 =Catsup
250,000 =Peanut Butter
1,000,000,000,000 Tar see Pitch drop experiment - Wikipedia
100,000,000,000,000,000= ice
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=mantle
In the Atlantic you should find no granite because it was removed by the high velocity high energy water. In the Pacific and Indian oceans granite is starting to be found because there parts of the granite crust were sucked downward toward the rising Atlantic.
Oh Lord, we have known of the submerged continent near New Zealand for a long time. But the rest of the Pacific is granite free. Where is all that granite?
Because of the movement in the mantle, especially in the Pacific, large amounts of basalt spilled onto the Pacific floor covering the Pacific continent. So the Atlantic is the top of the mantle, the Pacific is basalt that melted and spilled onto the Pacific floor.
Interestingly, looking at ocean sediment depth maps, the deeper sediment areas are adjacent to the continents.
good grief, I think that is what I showed in my diagram earlier. Obviously you didn’t actually pay much attention to the details I put into that diagram
I think you know where to find more info on this theory if you wish to take the time. It is clearly outside the current paradigm of plate tectonics, which Dr Brown and Christian Smoot have poked plenty of holes in.
You are talking to a guy who tried that game of picking holes in drift. One thing that is problematic for your view is that if you fit Africa and South America together, the flood deposited sediments match like a glove across that break. This is true up to the, I think, mid Cretacious. (I won’t go look up the exact time of the split. but both continents have the same sediments with the same fossils in the same order and the distribution or shape of these deposits match up when the continents are put together. There are beds with Glossopteris leaves, other beds that are coal, other beds that are volcanic and they are in the same order. Since the sand and shale were deposited after the continents started speed skating on the viscous mantle, taking Africa in one direction and SAmerica another, the distribution of the beds shouldn’t match.
Before the break up we find glacial tills that form a unit if you put the Antarctica, India Africa and South America together. But these are supposedly flood deposited sediment, It seems unlikely to me that they would be deposited like this after the continents are separated.
“Most significant is the presence of Carboniferous glacial
deposits on all the southern lands and India. These are
known as the Dwyka in South Africa, the Talchir in India,
the Itarare and Tupe in south America and the Buckeye in
Antarctica. It was one of the successes of Wegener’s
assembly of the continents that all these glaciated areas
were brought into reasonable space relationships."
"Above the glacial deposits is a series of continental
sediments with fossils of land animals, some coal and the
well-known Glossopteris flora. The karroo System of South
Africa is the best known. Simultaneous deposition of
similar continental sediments with similar fossils on four
separate land masses is one of the strongest points in
favor of the drift theory.” ~ William Lee Stokes and
Sheldon Judson, Introduction to Geology, (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1968), p. 426-427.
here are the glacial deposit extent on these four continents. They lie above fossiliferous sediments and even if you say these are not due to glaciers, they then must be explained why they fit like this in your theory.
Here is how coal aligns on the pangean continent. Coal is supposedly a flood deposit and those continents were now far away, sliding into the pacific.
I have enjoyed reading your writings posted on oldearth.org. You sir are a good man who brings up many thought provoking topics.
I am glad you enjoyed some of that stuff, but I wish you would believe what I said. I am not a good guy. I have been too demanding throughout my life, of family, of employees, and ask my sons about my patience–it isn’t good. I have been mean in my argumentation far too often (believe it or not I am mellow here. lol) As the bible says, thee is no one good.
As it pertains to the topic of accommodationalists, this discussion is off topic, but yet it is not. The question is: Is the Bible scientifically accurate as originally written? If the Bible is scientifically accurate then I believe something close to this theory/idea is close to the truth.
You should think about the fact that there is a differrence betwen what is written, and how it is interpreted. Everything written requires an interpretation. As classically understood, Genesis 1 does not match anything we find in geology. You guys tie yourself to a false science which you tie to the Bible like a dead albatross. The accommodationalist, just throw up their hands and say, Its false, bit Im going to believe it anyway. they interpret is as a theological message. I interpret it in a way that is evolutionary and matches science. I also have the only flood scenario that matches the Biblical description of Eden and the Flood and the flood was a real event, not a puny river flood, but it was local. Eretz, translated planet earth by you young earthers really means land or country. Be open to another idea or find something different than the YEC views.
Don’t think I didn’t notice that you didn’t explain what worm burrows are doing in the flood deposited sediment. You didn’t explain how river channels could be in the middle of the flood when everything is underwater, and you didn’t explain why there are hundreds of meteor impact craters found in the middle of the fossil record. (no the granite blocks are not the meteors.)
