In previous posts, we have presented extensive evidence which supports Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, which argues that most of the geological features found on earth are best explained by the events surrounding a catastrophic global flood rather than by tectonics and other "uniformitarian" theories which argue that most geological features were formed by the same processes which are going on today, working over tremendous lengths of time.
Previous evidence which we examined included the shape of deep ocean trenches, the gravity readings found above those ocean trenches, many aspects of earthquakes, many aspects of the Grand Canyon, the existence of fossils and geological strata, submarine canyons, the locations of volcanic activity, the case of the frozen mammoths, the fossil evidence found in Antarctica and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, the origin of petrified wood, and the apparent lack of impact from continental drift on megalithic monuments of great antiquity.
Going beyond evidence found on earth alone, Dr. Brown points out aspects of other bodies in the solar system which would also have been affected if the hydroplate theory is correct. He argues that the violence of the escaping water that caused the flood during the initial rupture event would have flung some water and rocks out of earth's orbit and into space. As the water burst out, not only would it have flung spray high into the atmosphere and even into space, but it would also have eroded the sides of the continental plates as it jetted out, filling the waters that covered the earth with tons of sediments and flinging a lot of it high into the atmosphere as well.
Additionally, the mass of the miles-high cliff faces created by this rupture would have caused huge blocks of earth and rock to collapse -- some of these giant chunks would have been forcefully jetted out into space. Most of those that were caught by earth's gravity would have burned up in the atmosphere, but the moon is not protected by an atmosphere and some of these huge pieces of earth would have struck it full force. You can see the scar left by this violent rupture and read more about the hydroplate theory in this previous post.
Dr. Brown argues that this theory provides a better explanation for the features on the surface of earth's moon than do other theories. For one thing, scientists know that the side of the moon that is always turned towards the earth has far more of the largest craters, which is very difficult to explain unless the source of the impacts was from the earth. Large space objects would be unlikely to circle around to the earth side of the moon and then turn around and dive onto the moon's surface instead of continuing on towards earth.
Even more mysterious, the dark patches on the moon's surface, which are visible from earth and are called the maria (or "seas") -- such as the Sea of Tranquility, or Mare Tranquillitatis -- are acknowledged by conventional scientists to have been formed by lava flows which have now cooled and hardened, and the vast majority of these are also on the earth-facing side of the moon as well. Why would almost all of them be on the earth-facing side? The few that are located on the far side are very small and are close to the few large craters on that side.
Dr. Brown explains on his site:
We might point out as an aside that if this is true of the features on the moon, it appears to be even more true for the features of the earth. The events described in Dr. Brown's theory would provide a very good explanation for these puzzling aspects of the lunar surface.
Previous evidence which we examined included the shape of deep ocean trenches, the gravity readings found above those ocean trenches, many aspects of earthquakes, many aspects of the Grand Canyon, the existence of fossils and geological strata, submarine canyons, the locations of volcanic activity, the case of the frozen mammoths, the fossil evidence found in Antarctica and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, the origin of petrified wood, and the apparent lack of impact from continental drift on megalithic monuments of great antiquity.
Going beyond evidence found on earth alone, Dr. Brown points out aspects of other bodies in the solar system which would also have been affected if the hydroplate theory is correct. He argues that the violence of the escaping water that caused the flood during the initial rupture event would have flung some water and rocks out of earth's orbit and into space. As the water burst out, not only would it have flung spray high into the atmosphere and even into space, but it would also have eroded the sides of the continental plates as it jetted out, filling the waters that covered the earth with tons of sediments and flinging a lot of it high into the atmosphere as well.
Additionally, the mass of the miles-high cliff faces created by this rupture would have caused huge blocks of earth and rock to collapse -- some of these giant chunks would have been forcefully jetted out into space. Most of those that were caught by earth's gravity would have burned up in the atmosphere, but the moon is not protected by an atmosphere and some of these huge pieces of earth would have struck it full force. You can see the scar left by this violent rupture and read more about the hydroplate theory in this previous post.
Dr. Brown argues that this theory provides a better explanation for the features on the surface of earth's moon than do other theories. For one thing, scientists know that the side of the moon that is always turned towards the earth has far more of the largest craters, which is very difficult to explain unless the source of the impacts was from the earth. Large space objects would be unlikely to circle around to the earth side of the moon and then turn around and dive onto the moon's surface instead of continuing on towards earth.
Even more mysterious, the dark patches on the moon's surface, which are visible from earth and are called the maria (or "seas") -- such as the Sea of Tranquility, or Mare Tranquillitatis -- are acknowledged by conventional scientists to have been formed by lava flows which have now cooled and hardened, and the vast majority of these are also on the earth-facing side of the moon as well. Why would almost all of them be on the earth-facing side? The few that are located on the far side are very small and are close to the few large craters on that side.
Dr. Brown explains on his site:
Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than on the far side. However, no seismic, gravity, or heat flow measurements support that hypothesis. The Moon’s density throughout is almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball, showing that little distinctive crust exists. Not only did large impacts form the giant basins, but much of their impact energy melted rock and generated lava flows. This is why the lava flows came after the craters formed. These impacts appear to have happened recently.Even conventional theorists admit that whatever caused the craters and the lava appears to have taken place in a relatively concentrated window of time in the past. In other words, uniformitarian processes (processes that are going on now, acting over very long periods of time) do not satisfactorily explain the features of the lunar surface. Some unusual event must have caused them.
[. . .]
If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions, all sides would be equally hit. Only if the impacts occurred rapidly from a specific direction would large impact features be concentrated on one side of the Moon. Of course, large impacts would kick up millions of smaller rocks that would themselves create impacts or go into orbit around the Moon and later create other impacts—even on Earth. Today, both sides of the Moon are saturated with smaller craters. Were the large lunar impactors launched from Earth?
We might point out as an aside that if this is true of the features on the moon, it appears to be even more true for the features of the earth. The events described in Dr. Brown's theory would provide a very good explanation for these puzzling aspects of the lunar surface.
