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.