The Biblical Implications of the
Planetoid Pangea Model
The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory,
(FD-WEDT) January 24th, 2011
David Freed MLS(ASCP)cm
Originally posted as part of: ‘Expanding Earth Theory and Noah’ (November 6th, 2006)
Any scientific support for a global flood theory begs for a scrutiny of scriptural correlation – if for no other reason than to satisfy curiosity. The Bible has made such outrageous claims in the statements about the conditions before the flood, and during the flood itself. You have to admit that these old stories are pretty hard to swallow without taking so much of it on faith alone. Some people say that if the Bible says it, then it must be true. For them, I have no criticism, although for a Confused individual such as myself, I require more information.
So, lets take scripture and lay it beside The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory (FD-WEDT)1 and examine the correlation. I do not claim to have any special insight into scripture in any way, other than not being afraid to add it to my data set. I am also equally not afraid to dismiss it in whole or part, if it does not stand scrutiny.
Gen 1:6 "And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'"
Gen 1:7 "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters above the firmament: and it was so."
Gen 1:20 "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." KJV2
In the Planetoid Pangea model, the active biosphere occupied a temperate zone between the planetoid’s surface and the giant gas atmosphere above. Waters beneath this zone possibly the trapped planetary mantel H2O that later became our oceans.3 Waters above this zone possibly trapped H2O within the gas giant atmosphere. Who could ever measure such a thing? Non-the-less, scripture does require a temperate zone about planetoid Pangea and so does the Biological Implications of the Planetoid Pangea Model.
Gen 2:5 “… God had not sent rain on the earth…”
Gen 2:6 “but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground…”NIV4
Both, Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics (WEDD)5 and FD-WEDT, hold to the premise that Earth began as a Jupiter sized gas giant protoplanet. Interesting environment painted by scripture. No rain fell from the strange atmosphere of the Protoplanet Earth, which may or may not be plausible. The hypothesis is impossible to test. Interestingly though, the Bible does not introduce the Rainbow to the story until after the global flood of Noah. Is this correlative evidence, or just some strange coincidence? A gas giant atmosphere without rain versus the atmosphere of today filled with rainbows. However, the suggestion of the earth being watered from the ground up may be totally consistent with the Planetoid Pangea model.
The planetoid at the center of this gas giant is compressed into a smaller sphere due to the increased pressures and combined gravity well. Planetoid Pangea, as affectionately termed by FD-WEDT, simultaneously satisfies all evidence supporting super-continent pangea and the compression dynamics of Protoplanet Earth. All theories of an expanding earth begin with Planetoid Pangea being 65% smaller than present day Earth. Decompression theories begin with Planetoid Pangea being compressed to this smaller diameter. Although it is impossible to predict the atmospheric conditions of a gas giant protoplanet, the effects of compression upon the Planetoid Pangea seems obvious. Artesian spring waters would have certainly flowed from the ground.
The Four Rivers of Eden
Gen 2:8 “…God planted a garden in the East, in Eden; and there
he put the man he had formed…”
Gen 2:10 “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.”
Gen 2:11 “The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold…”
Gen 2:13 “The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds though the entire land of Cush.”
Gen 2:14 “ The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” NIV
Four global rivers may also be totally consistent with Planetoid Pangea model. Remember, it is not the continental shorelines that form the tectonic zig-saw puzzle pieces of planetoid Pangea; but rather, the continental shelves. Modeling planetoid Pangea correctly, yield long narrow valleys formed at many of the shelf boundaries. Again the Atlantic rift becomes a perfect example of this concept. The Atlantic rift may have always been a basic element in the planetoids construct. Perhaps a necessary venting rift required by a compressed and active planetoid.
If filled with spring waters from the mantel, these long thin valleys would easily fill to form long thin bodies of water. Follow this same assumption throughout the planetary oceanic rift system and you stumble across a network of four global waterways easily seen as four global rivers.
The Global Flood
FD-WEDT describes a sudden and catastrophic decompression lead by the gasses and then followed immediately by the fluids, which lead to a global flood style rise and fall for water planet Oceana.
Gen 7:11 "... on the seventeenth day of the second month - on that day
all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens
were opened." NIV
Ponder the sequence of events: all the springs of the great deep burst forth then it rained.
Gen 7:12 "And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."
Gen 7:17 "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth .."
Gen 7:19 the waters "... rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." NIV
In fact -
Gen 7:20 "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of twenty feet." NIV
Scripture certainly is taking a stand on the flood being a global event versus a local phenomenon. Until WEDD and FD-WEDT the scriptural flood story also lacked a plausible mechanism. The rigidity of thinking earth’s diameter has always remaining constant has lead to false assumptions. By not understanding the mechanism of the global flood the scale of the event made it seem implausible. The whole point of FD-WEDT is that a global flood could have buried the landmasses under the waters of Oceana, for an unspecified period of time; and then, continued expansion of the planetary mantel pushed the landmasses up through the waters to their present elevations. The question of a 40-day rain generating enough water to flood the earth and the questions to where do all the receding waters disappear becomes suddenly mute.
Just how long was our planet submerged beneath the global floodwaters of Oceana? Science cannot predict. However, if we apply basic fluid dynamic principles as set forth by Le Chatelier6,7 to the global scale; then Protoplanet Pangea would have transformed into water planet Oceana almost instantly. This same principle also predicts that the decompression rate for the semi-solid planetary mantel would have been rapid and catastrophic at first, then slowed as mantel’s equilibrium point nears.
The Biblical Timeline
1.“…all the springs of the great deep burst forth…”
a statement totally in harmony with FD-WEDT. Amos 5:8;9:6 “Who summons
the waters of the sea … and pours them out upon the earth.”
2. “… and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." A statement impossible to prove, but if the fluids exploded from the ground, they would have next fell back to Earth. Add to this scenario, the possible contribution by the collapsing gas giant atmosphere. An atmosphere that I am sure contained both hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, and water. The contribution to the floodwaters by the atmosphere is unimaginable. The Biblical version speaks to floodgates. Protoplanet Earth was potentially 300-earth-volumes in size. If only 1% of this volume fell to earth as a liquid, earth may still be the water planet Oceana. The point being – it would have taken only a small percentage of atmosphere raining to earth to appear as a floodgate.
3. "And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." ”For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth ..." Suggesting that it took 40 days for the majority of the fluids to reach close enough to their equilibrium points to slow to a calm, at least as perceived from the waters surface.
The Biblical timeline has the floodwaters of Oceana covering the Earth for
at least 6 to 10 months. Suggesting that it took at least 6 to 10 months for
the decompressing semi-solids of the planetary mantel to catch up to the waters
These two concepts are not in conflict
Could the Biblical timeline correlate with the decompression sequence of FD-WEDT? Let me answer this by pointing out that these two concepts are not in conflict, a statement that is perhaps one of the biggest revelations of FD-WEDT.
More Biblical Data
As an investigator, I need data. We can Ponder the what-ifs all day long and not get anywhere at all. It is too bad that the Bible story doesn't include more facts to deal with. The only actual hard technical data available is just the dimensions of the ark.
Gen 6:15 "This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high." NIV
How bold of ancient man to include such precise measurements. Just imagine how maritime man of yesterday must have considered the dimensions of the ark. Take Christopher Columbus for example, his Santa Maria flagship was two feet shorter in overall length than the ark was in height. Mankind has never built ships to this scale until recent times. Consider the scale of the ark, measured as 75 feet by 450 feet, represents a width to length ratio of 1:6. Interesting ratio when you discover that it is the exact same average ratio, which modern super tankers are built to today; the ratio that has been shown to be the absolute most stable flotation platform for the world's largest and heaviest ships.8,9
Of course there are many examples of ships not being built to this ratio. The addition of computerized stability software has allowed designers to push the limits on our biggest aircraft carriers. But the point remains; the vast fleet of the largest and heaviest ships in the ocean today emulates the ark indeed.
Ponder this - Noah was given the exact same stability ratio that only took modern man 5000 years plus, of shipbuilding experience, to develop.
The trend over the past few centuries has been an apparent rivalry between the religious fundamentalism and science theory. Arguing the difference between the six days of Biblical creation and the billions of years of galactic formation. At one point in our history, the Pope proclaimed, ‘the moons of Jupiter must be artifacts inside the telescope of Copernicus.’
Science has since grown and validated itself by what it can do. Today, - cloning, heart transplants, and communications between planets are commonplace. Also the most current scientific thinking concludes an Expanding Earth through decompression. An idea that lays side-by-side with literal scripture without conflict. If these two different sides to the same geological story were of just scientific speculation, scientist from all over the world would quickly jump on this correlation between ideas to validate one another.
2 Wilfred Shucchat, The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah, 2002, Devora Publishing Company, NY, NY
3 The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, 1967, C.I. Scofield, Oxford University Press, NY
4 The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, New International Version, 1990 edition, The B. B. Kirkbride Bible Company Inc. Indianapolis, IN
5 J. Marvin Herndon, Whole-earth decompression dynamics, 10 December 2005, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 11
6 Segal, B., G., Chemistry Experiment and Theory, 2nd ed., 1989, John Wiley & Sons Inc. N.Y.
7 Brady, J., E., Holum, J., R., Fundamentals of Chemistry, 3rd ed., 1988, John Wiley & Sons Inc. N.Y.
8 H. Schneekluth and V. Bertram, Ship Design for Ef?ciency and Economy, 1998, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Boston, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New Delhi, and Singapore
9 L. Oudet, The Crisis in the Increase of Tonnage, 1968, Journal of Navigation (21: 305-319) The Royal Institute of Navigation, DOI: 10.1017/S0373463300024772 (About DOI) Published online: 18 Jan 2010