Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

Edge:"You mean the presupposition of accelerated decay? Am I to believe you are gullible enough to believe in this, and probably c-decay, as well?"--There you go with creationist presuppositions again. Can you really recall any time ever on this board where I gave variable c-velocity credibility?"In that case you must have some evidence. What is it? Since you haven't produced any evidence for CPT, I suggest that you haven't any for these, either."--That would be nice to discuss this, just not in this thread. This thread is not about CPT in general, let alone the decay of radioisotopes. I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance at a thread worthy of a conclusive verdict."Or are you saying that these graphs are evidence for CPT? LOL!"--Actually, in some manner, yes.

quote:

---

--Because, (1)the extent of normal and reversed polarity chrons themselves are probably still, for the most part random, ... "

---

"Which would invalidate your method, thank you."--Um... no, it is the opposite. If anything, this validates my methods for interpreting the data. If they were not random they would have to follow some pattern(as is seen in the graph), which would make the frequency of geomagnetic reversals seen in the graphs I have presented much less significant. In the scenario I have postulated with CPT, the frequency of geomagnetic reversals seen on the ocean floor is, for the most part, not due to the variability of polarity-chrons but by a variable rate of sea-floor spreading."Well, we wouldn't want you to be constrained by actual data."--To inform you, mainstream geophysics(which interpret the geomagnetic data as the frequency of polarity chrons, not the rate of sea-floor spreading) cannot assign numbers to the variability either.... if you like, you can dig up some nature articles I read on this subject by Glatzmaier et al. Nature, Vol 401, 28 October 1999. pp 885-890."That does not answer the criticism that you have used a term that equals zero in the denominator. This actually gives you an infinite rate of plate velocity."--I have not used a term that equals zero in the denominator. An infinite rate of plate velocity cannot be inferred from the data. I am confused as to how you have deduced this: "When there are no reversals, or no information (which is very possible in this case); the rate suddenly climbs to infinity." If a reversal is not occurring, this does not imply that the plate velocity is infinite. And what do you mean by 'no information'. The magnitude of the dipole moment can fluctuate, and as is seen in the fossil record, as well as some simulations by Glatzmier (nature, 1999, ref cited earlier in this post) even reach zero. That this would imply an infinite plate divergence velocity seems ridiculous. How is it that you have you deduced this inconsistency from the methods in my analysis?"Relative to what?"--Relative to the mean sea-floor spreading rate."Have you ever decided what evidence should be left behind by CPT? How would it be different from normal, uniformitarian geological features? See, this is what you need, but you have been unwilling to address this issue."--what do you mean? I had the initial prediction that there probably should be evidence of at least a deceleration in plate velocity with younger sea-floor. The geomagnetic data is pretty good evidence."I think you need to show that there IS frequency first."--Must have been a mistake that I did not seek your wisdom first. Don't you think its the most obvious observation in the data?

quote:

---

If you do cannot acknowledge the tremendous significance of this observation then you seriously need to read up on some of Glatzmaier's latest works.

---

"Glatzmaier has evidence? Please show us..."--Plenty. Infact, the opening statement of the complementary article by Bruce Buffett in nature 28 october 1999 begins in the opening sentences with:

quote:

---

Changes in the direction and intensity of this fossil magnetism indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has repeatedly reversed its polarity. More remarkable is the variability in the frequency of reversals.

---

Percy:"You still have a theory that ignores rather than explains evidence. Your particular approach has you accepting only some of the known evidence and ignoring the rest, and even worse arguing that the evidence you *do* accept was produced by unknown processes for which you also have no evidence. Until you can explain at least a proponderance of the evidence, and additionally provide evidence for your postulated processes, your ideas do not warrant any serious attention."--I think you are looking at this the wrong way. This thread is dedicated to the implications of the geomagnetic data presented in the preliminary paper and in post #1. At the moment I really don't care if I have ark soup or not but as to whether the geomagnetic data can be interpreted as being directly effected by the rate of sea-floor spreading."have adopted your position because of Genesis, not because of evidence."--Really? I don't remember saying that I have adopted this position? In fact, it is because of the evidence which I currently know of that I have not adopted it. I am merely exploring it and its potential for fruitful research. I merely am not convinced that uniformitarian geology can be the only explanation--hence my engagement with potentially fruitful research."Making my argument for evidence another way, please keep in mind that the Forum Guidelines request that you back your assertions with evidence. You are asserting that there was a global flood some 5000 years ago, and that during this flood there was a huge increase in the rate of many physical processes."--Well, to reiterate, no I have not asserted that "there was a global flood some 5000 years ago", I am exploring the idea in-depth by working within its framework. I am backing up my assertions with evidence. Which assertions relevant to this discussion have not been supported?"Where is the evidence for any of this?"--Well, what do you think of the geomagnetic data?--Please explain the evidence (having to do directly with the topic for this thread) I am ignoring. If it is relevant to this discussion please present it."It's disappointing to see you increasingly engage in debate maneuvers rather than straightforward discussion."--Percy, I am just very surprised that you cannot see any significance in the history of geomagnetic reversals. In particular, the extent of polarity-chrons."The forum guidelines are pretty clear about introducing arguments yourself rather than simply referencing them, in this case with not even a link but only a name."--All you have to do is ask for the specifics. Please read Nature, vol 401, 28 october 1999, pp. 885-890. In 'The role of the Earth's mantle in controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals' Glatzmaier seems to do a much better job at substantiating that a heterogenous surface heat flux on the CMB has an influence on the frequency of geomagnetic reversals rather than there being an explanation for that seen in the geomagnetic record[see figure given earlier] for sea-floor magnetic anomalies. Indeed, that Glatzmaier analysis explains the geomagnetic frequency is not really addressed(for good reason), but in Buffett's complementary article it is stated:

quote:

---

In particular, the change in behaviour[of the magnetic field] appears to be sufficient to explain the variations observed in Fig. 1[Record of average reversal rate over the past 160 million years, illustrates same trend seen in the graphs I have rendered in my article].

---

quote:

---

--There you go with creationist presuppositions again. Can you really recall any time ever on this board where I gave variable c-velocity credibility?

---

Well they are usually part of the same package. I can never keep track of what YECs think...

quote:

---

"In that case you must have some evidence. What is it? Since you haven't produced any evidence for CPT, I suggest that you haven't any for these, either."

​

--That would be nice to discuss this, just not in this thread. This thread is not about CPT in general, let alone the decay of radioisotopes. I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance at a thread worthy of a conclusive verdict.

---

With what you've given us you expect a conclusive verdict? Nonsense. And I didn't say it had to be here...

quote:

---

"Or are you saying that these graphs are evidence for CPT? LOL!"

​

--Actually, in some manner, yes.

---

TC, you need evidence that is persuasive of your thesis to the exception of other theses. You cannot provide this. Your graphs do not make sense in determining velocities and the data are readily explained by conventional PT, anyway. Why waste time on a fantastic story?

quote:

---

...That this would imply an infinite plate divergence velocity seems ridiculous. How is it that you have you deduced this inconsistency from the methods in my analysis?

---

I get this from your graph. It makes no sense. If you have a long period of no reversals, what do you get? High rates of divergence! But why can it not be simply a period of no reversals and the same rate of divergence? Your parameters are not dependent.

quote:

---

"Have you ever decided what evidence should be left behind by CPT? How would it be different from normal, uniformitarian geological features? See, this is what you need, but you have been unwilling to address this issue."

​

--what do you mean? I had the initial prediction that there probably should be evidence of at least a deceleration in plate velocity with younger sea-floor. The geomagnetic data is pretty good evidence.

---

No. Something concrete in the geological record. I can see why people like you and Baumgardner can only provide graphs and models: There is nothing in the real world to support your ideas.

quote:

---

"I think you need to show that there IS frequency first."

​

--Must have been a mistake that I did not seek your wisdom first. Don't you think its the most obvious observation in the data?

---

You have assumed a periodicity that can be defined in a framework of 3 million year intervals. What if that period cannot be resolved at that scale?

quote:

---

--If you do cannot acknowledge the tremendous significance of this observation then you seriously need to read up on some of Glatzmaier's latest works.

​

"Glatzmaier has evidence? Please show us..."

​

--Plenty. Infact, the opening statement of the complementary article by Bruce Buffett in nature 28 october 1999 begins in the opening sentences with:

​

quote:

---

Changes in the direction and intensity of this fossil magnetism indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has repeatedly reversed its polarity. More remarkable is the variability in the frequency of reversals.

---

---

This is not evidence to support your conclusion. It is a statement that the variability of reversals is extreme. Unpredictable, I would guess. So why are you assuming that it must have a period? And why should the rate of divergence be dependent upon it?I would also like to know how you have accomodated the variability of rates as they exist today. We have variability of up to 5X just in the current rates of divergence. How does this affect your graph?

quote:

---

--Well, to reiterate, no I have not asserted that "there was a global flood some 5000 years ago", I am exploring the idea in-depth by working within its framework.

---

A framework carefully chosen to ignore the actual geological record. As I have said to another poster here, your model is like a crossword puzzle where there are no crossing words. Very little challenge and not much verifiability...

quote:

---

P:"Where is the evidence for any of this?"

​

--Well, what do you think of the geomagnetic data?

---

Readily explainable by conventional plate tectonics. Why resort to fantastic tales?

quote:

---

--Percy, I am just very surprised that you cannot see any significance in the history of geomagnetic reversals.

---

And I am astounded that one can be so willing to read so much into them, based on no evidence whatsoever. You assume that the only thing controlling magnetic reversals is the rate of plate divergence. A pretty big assumption, don't you think?

Sure this thread is about CPT. This is from your Message 1 quoting your paper where you argue the data supports CPT:

"This indicates that either geomagnetic reversals are not random and apparently correlate with the breakup of Pangea and today's continental position--an implausible scenario--or that from analysis of the geomagnetic data we can infer that there has been an acceleration and deceleration in sea-floor spreading during CPT."

Moving on, here you again refuse to introduce evidence: You avoid discussing evidence at every opportunity. But it is self-evidently true nonetheless, because you have no evidence for a global flood 5000 years ago, and the only source for it is Genesis. And just a little later you say: So you're arguing that you're working within the framework of a global flood 5000 years ago for which you have no evidence, but that Genesis is not the source of the idea. Does that sound believable, even to you?Moving on: Well, this is rich. At the same time that you object to the charge of engaging in debate maneuvers you engage in yet another one. You know very well that this is false and that I attach great importance to magnetic reversals as supporting evidence for an ancient earth, and that I was actually referring to your name dropping of Glatzmaier without elaboration or explanation. I repeat that it is disappointing to see you increasingly engage in debate maneuvers rather than straightforward discussion.Whether or not there is any correlation between rates of magnetic reversals and rates of seafloor spreading, either way it wouldn't be evidence of CPT. CPT requires dramatic violations of known physical laws for which you have no evidence. For this reason your ideas do not merit any serious consideration.Find the evidence, TC. Until you do you're just building castles in the clouds.--Percy

TC:Since you are so familiar with Glatzmaier's work, can you explain why his model generated a field reversal 36,000 YEARS after initialization? How does this fit in with YECism?Can you further explain why the reversals are completely random, occurring on the order of several 'tens of thousands of years to tens of millions of years'? Don't you think this kind of destroys your whole concept of using reversals to measure the rate of plate divergence? This clock obviously does not keep time.Do you still put any credence in his model considering that he has not entertained the possiblility of accelerated decay? Would seem to me that this lack of attention would completely invalidate his model.I really see no evidence here that supports your position. Glatzmaier has created a model that mimics the variation of the earth's magnetic field. There is nothing here to support any particular frequency of magnetic reversals that can be used to support CPT.

quote:

---

Percy: Sure this thread is about CPT. This is from your Message 1 quoting your paper where you argue the data supports CPT:

​

"This indicates that either geomagnetic reversals are not random and apparently correlate with the breakup of Pangea and today's continental position--an implausible scenario--or that from analysis of the geomagnetic data we can infer that there has been an acceleration and deceleration in sea-floor spreading during CPT."

---

Heh heh. What TC is saying is that the reversals are not random or they are not random!

Edge:"Well they are usually part of the same package. I can never keep track of what YECs think..."--Even YEC's must evolve. Otherwise there would be no reason to continue in scientific inquiries.

quote:

---

--That would be nice to discuss this, just not in this thread. This thread is not about CPT in general, let alone the decay of radioisotopes. I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance at a thread worthy of a conclusive verdict.

---

"With what you've given us you expect a conclusive verdict? Nonsense."--Um.. no. This is not what I said. I said "I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance[at a conclusive verdict]". This sentence cannot possibly be interpreted as an assertion stating that there is already a conclusive verdict."TC, you need evidence that is persuasive of your thesis to the exception of other theses. You cannot provide this. Your graphs do not make sense in determining velocities..."--I think that the data is easily interpreted as having been greatly influenced by the rate of sea-floor spreading. Explain why this would not make sense.and the data are readily explained by conventional PT, anyway."--REALLY? well then spill it."I get this from your graph. It makes no sense."--Just because the curve may not fit on the graph does not imply infinity. Maybe I should make this clear in the article?"If you have a long period of no reversals, what do you get? High rates of divergence!"--Yup. This doesn't mean that the rate of sea-floor spreading is infinite!"But why can it not be simply a period of no reversals and the same rate of divergence?"--It could, but then you have to have a mechanism by which the trend seen in the frequency of geomagnetic reversals on 10⁸ year time scale can be explained. If geomagnetic reversals are random, you have a problem!"No. Something concrete in the geological record. I can see why people like you and Baumgardner can only provide graphs and models: There is nothing in the real world to support your ideas."-lol, you think that geomagnetic anomalies on the sea-floor do not qualify as a piece of the geological record???"You have assumed a periodicity that can be defined in a framework of 3 million year intervals. What if that period cannot be resolved at that scale?"--I have already tested this. Here is it on 10 Ma time scale and a 5 Ma time scale. [Click above images for larger size]And here is data from William Lowrie(1997) (originally after Cande and Kent (1992) for the last "80 Ma" of geomagnetic reversals on a much smaller scale:--I think there is frequency."This is not evidence to support your conclusion. It is a statement that the variability of reversals is extreme. Unpredictable, I would guess. So why are you assuming that it must have a period? And why should the rate of divergence be dependent upon it?"--That it has a "period", or a change in frequency over the time-span in which the sea-floor was formed, is not an assumption, but is very well substantiated. I am saying that the rate of divergence is so dependent upon it because it simply is a valid interpretation, I have no direct reason to say otherwise. That the observed frequency of geomagnetic reversals can be explained by systematic alterations in the CMB heat flux due to the opening and closing of oceans has not convinced me as very plausible from what I have read of Glatzmaier et al."I would also like to know how you have accomodated the variability of rates as they exist today. We have variability of up to 5X just in the current rates of divergence. How does this affect your graph?"--I think you are talking about the rate of divergence relative from one ocean ridge to another. William Lowrie mentions this in Fundamentals of Geophysics (1997), pp. 300:

quote:

---

A plot of the distance to a given anomaly in the South Atlantic against the distance to the same anomaly in the Indian, North Pacific and South Pacific oceans contains several long linear segments, representing constant rates of sea-floor spreading in both oceans defining the line (Fig. 5.77). A change in gradient indicates a change in spreading rate in one ocean relative to the other.

---

--This would not effect my graph because this involves increased spreading rates for all ocean ridges."Readily explainable by conventional plate tectonics. Why resort to fantastic tales?"--Because it doesn't seem so fantastic. Also, as I said earlier, please explain the frequency and please model your mechanism. Because it isn't in any papers I've read on the topic."And I am astounded that one can be so willing to read so much into them, based on no evidence whatsoever. You assume that the only thing controlling magnetic reversals is the rate of plate divergence. A pretty big assumption, don't you think?"--It would be, but that was not my assumption. My 'assumption' was that the rate of plate divergence was the most influential factor in creating the trend we see when we plot the geomagnetic data on a graph.Percy:"Sure this thread is about CPT. This is from your Message 1 quoting your paper where you argue the data supports CPT--Yup! So in other words, I want to discuss that data, and whether it does or doesn't support CPT. Were not going to be discussing paleosols, were not going to be discussing, evaporites, were not going to be discussing pelagic sediments on the sea-floor, etc. Now unless when you stated, "You still have a theory that ignores rather than explains evidence." you were talking about something directly to do with the geomagnetic data, or my interpretation thereof, I don't want to discuss it here.

quote:

---

"In that case you must have some evidence. What is it? Since you haven't produced any evidence for CPT, I suggest that you haven't any for these, either."

​

That would be nice to discuss this, just not in this thread.

---

"You avoid discussing evidence at every opportunity."--Percy, Edge was referring to accelerated decay.. not geomagnetism and the rate of sea-floor spreading. I am not avoiding discussion of "the evidence", I would just like to stay on topic, if you don't mind.

quote:

---

"[You]have adopted your position because of Genesis, not because of evidence."

​

--Really? I don't remember saying that I have adopted this position?

---

"But it is self-evidently true nonetheless, because you have no evidence for a global flood 5000 years ago, and the only source for it is Genesis."--I think I do have evidence(eg. that being discussed right now for one), but to reiterate I have not adopted this position. I cannot say that it occurred because I don't know!

quote:

---

And just a little later you say:

​

"Well, to reiterate, no I have not asserted that "there was a global flood some 5000 years ago", I am exploring the idea in-depth by working within its framework."

​

So you're arguing that you're working within the framework of a global flood 5000 years ago for which you have no evidence, but that Genesis is not the source of the idea. Does that sound believable, even to you?

---

--I never said that Genesis was not the ultimate source of the idea."Well, this is rich. At the same time that you object to the charge of engaging in debate maneuvers you engage in yet another one. You know very well that this is false and that I attach great importance to magnetic reversals as supporting evidence for an ancient earth, and that I was actually referring to your name dropping of Glatzmaier without elaboration or explanation. I repeat that it is disappointing to see you increasingly engage in debate maneuvers rather than straightforward discussion."--Supporting as evidence for an ancient earth in no way whatsoever you have substantiated in this forum, nor any other person for that matter. What I have said is entirely true and is recognized by much of the geophysical community (eg. Glatzermaier, Roberts Paul H., Lowrie). That you cannot recognize the same significance from the geomagnetic data is surprising as self-evident as it is. This is not a debate maneuver (nor any fallacy of logical progression in debate). Not giving you the full citation of Glatzmaier was not a debate maneuver and neither is anything else I have argued. I WANT straight-forward discussion, but as far as I can tell, you are only beating around the bush."Whether or not there is any correlation between rates of magnetic reversals and rates of seafloor spreading, either way it wouldn't be evidence of CPT."--So if the geomagnetic data would imply that the rate of sea-floor spreading was multiple orders of magnitude higher than today, it would not be evidence in favour of CPT? How have you redefined 'evidence'?"CPT requires dramatic violations of known physical laws for which you have no evidence. For this reason your ideas do not merit any serious consideration."--Your reason is falliceous, seemingly used to escape your requirement to explain the data yourself. You have no explanation for the frequency of geomagnetic reversals and so far it does not seem that you have any intention to explain them. That "CPT requires dramatic violations of known physical laws" is something I am not going to address in this thread, simply because it is irrelevant to this specific discussion."Find the evidence, TC. Until you do you're just building castles in the clouds."--I have given my evidence, Edge is starting to understand it--or at least is asking some of the right questions, I don't know what's leaving you behind.Edge:"Since you are so familiar with Glatzmaier's work, can you explain why his model generated a field reversal 36,000 YEARS after initialization? How does this fit in with YECism?"--The simulations were made only to consider small variations which would get the job done over geologic time. For instance, the total heat flow out of the core is maintained at 7.2 x 10¹² W. The magnetic dipole diffusion time is maintained at 20,000 years. One of the simulation cases has uniform radial heat flux over the CMB, but for the seven other non-uniform cases they fixed the peak heat flux variation at a mere 0.0446 W m^-2 relative to the mean."Can you further explain why the reversals are completely random, occurring on the order of several 'tens of thousands of years to tens of millions of years'? Don't you think this kind of destroys your whole concept of using reversals to measure the rate of plate divergence? This clock obviously does not keep time."--Reversals aren't completely random, as Glatzermaier showed through his simulations with a variable heterogenous heat flux over the core-mantle boundary (but it is not substantiated that the simulations could explain that seen in the geomagnetic record on the 10⁸ year time-scale). This does not destroy the concept of using reversals to measure the rate of plate divergence."Do you still put any credence in his model considering that he has not entertained the possibility of accelerated decay? Would seem to me that this lack of attention would completely invalidate his model."--Not really, What Glatzermaier et al. did in the article (nature, 1999, 28 october) was more to show the variable behavior of the geomagnetic field (specifically, reversals of polarity) with a variable heat flux through the CMB. The simulations he did also did not run very long at all. Much longer simulations, with many more reversals than one or two would be needed to assess the statistical significance of many of the correlations (between CMB heat flux and geomagnetic field behavior) seen in the data. His simulations simply don't seem to explain the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time seen in the data--even when considering mantle convection."I really see no evidence here that supports your position. Glatzmaier has created a model that mimics the variation of the earth's magnetic field. There is nothing here to support any particular frequency of magnetic reversals that can be used to support CPT."--Thats because I interpret the geomagnetic data as being indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading, not the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. Geomagnetic reversals are still, for the most part, random. The geomagnetic data is the evidence I am proposing for CPT, the only way you can question this is by refuting my methods for interpreting the data. Can you do this?

quote:

---

Percy: Sure this thread is about CPT. This is from your Message 1 quoting your paper where you argue the data supports CPT:

​

"This indicates that either geomagnetic reversals are not random and apparently correlate with the breakup of Pangea and today's continental position--an implausible scenario--or that from analysis of the geomagnetic data we can infer that there has been an acceleration and deceleration in sea-floor spreading during CPT."

---

"Heh heh. What TC is saying is that the reversals are not random or they are not random! "--No, the latter alternative I listed implies that they are, for the most part, random.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-15-2003] [Adjusted size of images that were too wide. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-16-2003]

TC,You are lacking the most important evidence for CPT. We have discsussed this in detail before. If CPT had occured there should be no life on earth. There is life on earth so CPT is falsified before you even start. For someone who seems to be pretty intellegent you have sure wasted a lot of time on this nonsense.Randy

Hi, TC!You *do* realize, I hope, that we in essence have just had this conversation: And also this conversation: If you would instead focus on the evidence instead of engaging in pointless diversionary debate tactics I think you could avoid these little reversals and self-contradictions.You go on to say: We already know the data does not support CPT. That's why CPT has to additionally propose dramatic violations of established physical principles. Only by ignoring physics can you make the data fit your theory.Only when you have evidence that the laws of physics were dramatically different at times in the past do you have any valid scientific basis for exploring your ideas. Until then they are not worthy of consideration.--Percy

Percy, I was mistaken to think you are trying to read in context. Theres much more to my 'Yup!' than you attribute..otherwise I wouldn't write a paragraph expounding on it.."If you would instead focus on the evidence instead of engaging in pointless diversionary debate tactics I think you could avoid these little reversals and self-contradictions."
--Why are you talking about pointless diversionary debate tactics when this whole post is nothing but? Not to mention that you have continually attempted to diverge the topic to a general discussion of CPT (ONLY so that you can go back to your argument about the mechanics of CPT and your speculation that "physical constants must have been different then than now"). I say that even if they are(which they probably aren't) you shouldn't have a care in the world if you want to discuss in this topic. I am sorry but this seems to be your way of keeping from the topic (Geomagnetism and the rate of sea-floor spreading).You say, "We already know the data does not support CPT" but you can't just can't recognize that you cannot explain that seen in the geomagnetic record, and I can(which you have not refuted to any degree)! I have not seen a viable mainstream alternative to explain this data, not in the geophysical literature, and certainly not on this board.You can roll on and on with your misinterpretations of any of my posts and try to make this topic one for general CPT, but I think I made it pretty clear in post #1: The load was already high in there so I will make a thread just for the topic of geomagnetism. You may not have read the topic title yet, so please take the time for it to sink in.Percy, if you want this thread to go anywhere, and if you are done attempting to rewrite the topic for this thread, please answer my criticisms(post 22) of your posts and your attempted refutation of my interpretation of the data.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-16-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-16-2003]

"You are lacking the most important evidence for CPT. We have discsussed this in detail before. If CPT had occured there should be no life on earth. There is life on earth so CPT is falsified before you even start. For someone who seems to be pretty intellegent you have sure wasted a lot of time on this nonsense. "
--I think that is the plan. How noah's ark survived? I have no friggin clue. I think I will wait until we can be sure of how the flood would have had to progress before we can move onto how the ark survived. I really don't care though, Noah's ark is not a concern of mine and probably never will be. I care about modeling the history of the earth, noah's ark can be someone elses concern, not mine.

quote:

---

Edge:"Since you are so familiar with Glatzmaier's work, can you explain why his model generated a field reversal 36,000 YEARS after initialization? How does this fit in with YECism?"

​

--The simulations were made only to consider small variations which would get the job done over geologic time. For instance, the total heat flow out of the core is maintained at 7.2 x 1012 W. The magnetic dipole diffusion time is maintained at 20,000 years. One of the simulation cases has uniform radial heat flux over the CMB, but for the seven other non-uniform cases they fixed the peak heat flux variation at a mere 0.0446 W m-2 relative to the mean.

---

So, Glatzmaier is wrong. Then why do you use him as a source and talk about how groundbreaking it is? Have you contacted him about his mistaken assumptions yet?

quote:

---

"Can you further explain why the reversals are completely random, occurring on the order of several 'tens of thousands of years to tens of millions of years'? Don't you think this kind of destroys your whole concept of using reversals to measure the rate of plate divergence? This clock obviously does not keep time."

​

--Reversals aren't completely random, as Glatzermaier showed through his simulations with a variable heterogenous heat flux over the core-mantle boundary (but it is not substantiated that the simulations could explain that seen in the geomagnetic record on the 108 year time-scale). This does not destroy the concept of using reversals to measure the rate of plate divergence.

---

But even Glatzmaier says the reversals are random... Is he wrong about that also? For a guy who makes so many mistakes you seem to extoll his work a lot.

quote:

---

"Do you still put any credence in his model considering that he has not entertained the possibility of accelerated decay? Would seem to me that this lack of attention would completely invalidate his model."

​

--Not really, What Glatzermaier et al. did in the article (nature, 1999, 28 october) was more to show the variable behavior of the geomagnetic field (specifically, reversals of polarity) with a variable heat flux through the CMB.

---

Wait a minute. YOu just said abvove that the, "heat flow out of the core is maintained at 7.2 x 1012 W". Which is it?The simulations he did also did not run very long at all. Much longer simulations, with many more reversals than one or two would be needed to assess the statistical significance of many of the correlations (between CMB heat flux and geomagnetic field behavior) seen in the data. His simulations simply don't seem to explain the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time seen in the data--even when considering mantle convection.[/quote]Then there is no description of the frequency of reversals. How can you say the reversal are periodic? This is getting silly.

quote:

---

"I really see no evidence here that supports your position. Glatzmaier has created a model that mimics the variation of the earth's magnetic field. There is nothing here to support any particular frequency of magnetic reversals that can be used to support CPT."

​

--Thats because I interpret the geomagnetic data as being indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading, not the frequency of geomagnetic reversals.

---

Yep, that's the whole point. The rate of reversals have little to do with 'castrophic' plate motions. And yet you maintain that they can be used to measure the rates of divergence!

quote:

---

"Heh heh. What TC is saying is that the reversals are not random or they are not random! "

​

--No, the latter alternative I listed implies that they are, for the most part, random.

---

Then you need to clarify your posts. The first case is obviously not true and, in the latter case, your method does not work because the reversals are mostly random.

quote:

---

"You are lacking the most important evidence for CPT. We have discsussed this in detail before. If CPT had occured there should be no life on earth. There is life on earth so CPT is falsified before you even start. For someone who seems to be pretty intellegent you have sure wasted a lot of time on this nonsense. "

​

--I think that is the plan. How noah's ark survived? I have no friggin clue.

---

Perhaps this is a clue in itself.Let's see, could it be that there never was such a flood or such a thing as CPT? Nah!

quote:

---

I think I will wait until we can be sure of how the flood would have had to progress before we can move onto how the ark survived.

---

Sure, do all the work an then address the fatal flaw.

quote:

---

I really don't care though, Noah's ark is not a concern of mine and probably never will be. I care about modeling the history of the earth, noah's ark can be someone elses concern, not mine.

---

Sure. Let's just ignore that nasty little point!By the way, it was not just Noah's boat. The question regarded all life on earth...

quote:

---

That would be nice to discuss this, just not in this thread. This thread is not about CPT in general, let alone the decay of radioisotopes. I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance at a thread worthy of a conclusive verdict.

​

"With what you've given us you expect a conclusive verdict? Nonsense."

​

--Um.. no. This is not what I said. I said "I would like to stay on topic so that there might actually be a chance[at a conclusive verdict]". This sentence cannot possibly be interpreted as an assertion stating that there is already a conclusive verdict.

---

Try reading once again. I did not say that you thought there was a verdict, simply that this data is hardly conducive to a verdict (other than that you really are out of your depth here).

quote:

---

"TC, you need evidence that is persuasive of your thesis to the exception of other theses. You cannot provide this. Your graphs do not make sense in determining velocities..."

​

--I think that the data is easily interpreted as having been greatly influenced by the rate of sea-floor spreading. Explain why this would not make sense.

---

In a word (or two): radiometric dates. Your account does not explain them.

quote:

---

and the data are readily explained by conventional PT, anyway."

​

--REALLY? well then spill it.

---

If we look at ALL of the data, rather than a slice of a single graph, we see that the plates have diverged at variable rates but nothing like what you are talking about."I get this from your graph. It makes no sense."

quote:

---

--Just because the curve may not fit on the graph does not imply infinity. Maybe I should make this clear in the article?

---

Maybe you need to come up with some actual numbers.

quote:

---

"If you have a long period of no reversals, what do you get? High rates of divergence!"

​

--Yup. This doesn't mean that the rate of sea-floor spreading is infinite!

---

Then tell us what the rates are. Don't just give us an asymptotic line heading off into space.

quote:

---

"But why can it not be simply a period of no reversals and the same rate of divergence?"

​

--It could, but then you have to have a mechanism by which the trend seen in the frequency of geomagnetic reversals on 108 year time scale can be explained. If geomagnetic reversals are random, you have a problem!

---

Not at all. There is no problem with random data, it means something. It cannot however be used to compute a rate of plate divergence.

quote:

---

"No. Something concrete in the geological record. I can see why people like you and Baumgardner can only provide graphs and models: There is nothing in the real world to support your ideas."

​

-lol, you think that geomagnetic anomalies on the sea-floor do not qualify as a piece of the geological record???

---

The domains are there, but they are readily explained by normal plate tectonic theory. At any rate, there should be some corroborating evidence for your hypothesis... But there isn't.

quote:

---

"You have assumed a periodicity that can be defined in a framework of 3 million year intervals. What if that period cannot be resolved at that scale?"

​

--I have already tested this. Here is it on 10 Ma time scale and a 5 Ma time scale.

---

Okay, so what is the frequency? Why is it different at different times in the past? Why does Glatzmaier say that the periods are effectively random?

quote:

---

And here is data from William Lowrie(1997) (originally after Cande and Kent (1992) for the last "80 Ma" of geomagnetic reversals on a much smaller scale:

---

Ummm, why don't you carry the graphs out to the same time? This is really fuzzy thinking on your part: just cut off the graph to show a pattern that you like...

quote:

---

--I think there is frequency.

---

Once again, what is it?

quote:

---

"This is not evidence to support your conclusion. It is a statement that the variability of reversals is extreme. Unpredictable, I would guess. So why are you assuming that it must have a period? And why should the rate of divergence be dependent upon it?"

​

--That it has a "period", or a change in frequency over the time-span in which the sea-floor was formed, ...

---

Uh oh... I think I see where you problem is. A 'period' is not a 'change in frequency'.

quote:

---

...is not an assumption, but is very well substantiated.

---

No one would argue that there is not a change in frequency. We are arguing that the reversals cannot be used as a parameter for measuring the rate of plate divergence.

quote:

---

"Readily explainable by conventional plate tectonics. Why resort to fantastic tales?"

​

--Because it doesn't seem so fantastic.

---

Really! Galloping plates that leave behind no trace of their passing? Yeah, we see that alllll the time!

quote:

---

Also, as I said earlier, please explain the frequency and please model your mechanism. Because it isn't in any papers I've read on the topic.

---

I really don't have a mechanism for periodicity of reversals because I am not saying they are periodic! Glatzmaier has given you a mechanism for how pole reversals happen. Remember, this was not an objective of his study. It just fell out of the model. He also says that reversals are effectively random.

quote:

---

"And I am astounded that one can be so willing to read so much into them, based on no evidence whatsoever. You assume that the only thing controlling magnetic reversals is the rate of plate divergence. A pretty big assumption, don't you think?"

​

--It would be, but that was not my assumption. My 'assumption' was that the rate of plate divergence was the most influential factor in creating the trend we see when we plot the geomagnetic data on a graph.

---

You did not mention any other factors. Nevertheless, you have no support in your effort to show a direct relationship of spreading rates and reversals. If you did, you could tell us what the calculated rates are. You could show periodicity of the data. You can't. Even your main source of support really disagrees with you.This is getting tedious, TC. Please show us some evidence to support CPT. You have provided no geological evidence as yet and we grow impatient. All you have shown us is some data that are readily explained by conventional PT.

Oh, I see now. Clearly it's everyone else's fault. This is untrue, TC. I have been very consistent in asking you to provide evidence supporting your ideas (so far you have done everything but), and in refusing to discuss them until you do. How confused you are! It is *your* speculation that physical laws were different in the past, not mine. Don't you remember accelerated continental drift, accelerated decay, accelerated cooling, and all that? It is one of the things for which I keep asking for evidence, and for which you have still offered none. And why do you put quotes around something I never said? More confusion, TC? Your plot of the rate of magnetic reversals versus time provides no support for CPT or for the violations of physical laws required by CPT. What an imagination you have, TC! I've never attempted any refutation of your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that your views require physical laws to have dramatically changed at one point in the past, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You are in effect saying, "Let's debate the validity of my ideas while ignoring that they violate physical laws." I'm not going to do that, TC, until you provide evidence that the physical laws were ever different.--Percy