Hydritic Earth Theory

Hydritic Earth Theory seems another of those fringe theories confronting Plate Tectonics and like the latter suffers from Lyellianism, that:

“In Earth Science, a most fundamental premise is that the chemical composition of the planet is the basis for its internal processes.  These processes themselves are believed to generate both the internal and the external features of the planet.  Geologists considering global tectonics are restricted to the constraints of dynamic systems that are compatible with the most reliable model of Earth composition.  If the “reliable” model is, in fact, incorrect, they will be led on circular paths of mistaken deduction by their incorrect precepts.” (Hydritic Earth, V. Larin, Edited on translation C: Warren Hunt, Introduction)

In other words the theory sticks to the standard model of liberal creation, Big Bang 14 billion years ago, etc, etc, and that the only external influences on the Earth are restricted to the occasional impact from bolides of various sizes.  Otherwise most, if not all, geological phenomena are features of a closed system.

There’s another interesting feature of the theory – its focus on hydrogen, while accurate, is also a little misleading since the inferred behaviour of hydrogen in the core and mantle is actually based on ionised hydrogen, or the proton.  Ionised hydrogen is the chemist’s description while proton the electrical engineer’s. And then to confuse matters a neutron is comprised of a proton and an electron, which makes it hydrogen.  Confusing?

Think on it, (if you know how).

Update: Thinking has led me to look again at Bill Gaede’s ideas.

 

 

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Electric Universe, Geology, Hare-brained theories, plasma universe, Scientific Stupidities. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Hydritic Earth Theory

  1. Thx1138 says:

    George Grinnell

    The Origins of Modern Geological Theory*

    “Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book [Principles of Geology, 1830-1833] is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate … Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.”

    Stephen Jay Gould, “Catastrophes and Steady-State Earth”,
    in Natural History, February, 1975, pp. 16, 17.

    http://www.sedin.org/propeng/grinneng.htm

    Like

  2. Edward says:

    The “Big Bang Theory” was a production of the Roman Catholic Church for the purposes of keeping their Yahweh-El-God religion alive as science was in the process of progressing and leaving their “Genesis” woo-woo myth behind in the dust that created Adam. Whether or not the theory is correct or incorrect there was strong motive and campaign behind getting the world to accept it.

    FACT.

    Take it away Wikipedia…

    “Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, empirical evidence provides strong support for the former.[9] ”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    Right… so who is this brilliant Georges Lemaitre chap? It’s not like he’s a member of the Catholic Church with a vested interested in promoting fake science or anything right?

    “One of the themes attracting public attention on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the death of Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), a Belgian priest and cosmologist, involves his relationship with Pius XII in proposing a supposed link between the expansion of the universe hypothesis (Big Bang) – of which Lemaître was one of the first theorists – and the possibility to produce “scientific” evidence of the existence of God.”

    http://inters.org/pio-xii-lemaitre

    Okay… so just because he’s a Belgian Priest and cosmologist and friend of the Pope with a vested interest in the outcome doesn’t mean that he’s intentionally fabricating a truth right? I mean after all even Einstein finally agreed with him (after he had previously vociferously DISAGREED with him in favour of the steady state universe model) …

    “Einstein did not initially accept Lemaître’s point of view and introduced a parameter ad hoc into the equations (the term λ) precisely to “balance” this expansion, having to change his mind later and confess to having made the biggest mistake of his life on that occasion.”

    Lots of ad hoc stuff still going around these days… they are called “constants” aka “fixes”…

    So Einstein hears about this new theory first from another of his friends Alexander Friedman at about the same time the World’s most famous physicist receives some money from the World’s richest and stingiest man… (& UN founder)

    “Very shortly before Lemaître, another scientist also hit on similar ideas as Lemaître concerning the expansion of the universe, Alexander Friedmann, whose work was little known despite being published in the well-known Zeitschrift für Physik and that he had shared his ideas with Einstein, which Einstein at the time dismissed- a fact which later became one of Einstein’s biggest regrets of his scientific career.”

    http://gizmodo.com/georges-lemaitre-the-greatest-scientist-you-ve-never-h-1519769080

    “‘When a young Albert Einstein sent a request for $500 to John D. Rockefeller’s top lieutenant, Rockefeller instructed his deputy, “Let’s give him $1,000. He may be onto something.” It was bold and daring, intrepid and risk-taking. Time is important, as Einstein of all people taught us, so it’s relevant to know when that story took place. The answer is astonishing: it was 1924. The ‘young’ Einstein was 45 years old. He’d won a Nobel Prize the year before.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/caroline-fiennes/einstein-rockerfeller_b_4143945.html

    So Einstein was ‘on to something’… was that a way to buttress religion with ‘science’ ? (Think IPCC)

    And why wasn’t Alexander Friedman credited as being the father of the Big Bang Theory? Do you think that perhaps they needed a better performer to create a firewall around the Genesis “In the beginning” myth? A fair question I think.

    “On closer inspection, it appears that the clarifications of Lemaître, paradoxically, must have been more oriented towards preventing the trespassing of science in theology – as could have resulted from the citations of Whittaker, Arrhenius and Plate – which does not prevent, as is commonly believed, the interference of theology or Popes in science.”

    http://inters.org/pio-xii-lemaitre

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s