Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

TC, from your paper:

quote:

---

However, with new developments in young earth geodynamics such as Runaway Subduction and the acceptance and appreciable success of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics(CPT), that geomagnetic reversals have occurred no longer needs to be a subject of such intense debate.

---

(emphasis mine)TC, the bolded portion of that statement is enough for any mainstream scientist to stop taking you seriously. That statement is a baldface lie and you know it. CPT is NOT accepted by the scientific community (I notice you do not specify by whom it is accepted) nor is it at all successful.As a scientist, it is your responsibility to be completely honest and up-front about everything you present. You should have mentioned the fact that no one except Creationists believe CPT is possible, as well as all the problems with it (you remember the heat problem, right?). The fact that you made no effort to do so smacks of intentional deceit and misrepresentation. It is disheartening, to say the least.If misrepresenting the truth is what you have to do in order to get published, then you should sacrifice that option and not publish. You better think long and hard about what you want here TC, especially if you want to have a successful career in this field. Also, if you are having to comprimise the quality of science in order to prove your position, then it is not science. Do you want to be known as a scientist or a *scientist?*As for your paper, it is woefully incomplete. Besides presenting questionable interpretations (lack of supporting evidence), misrepresenting mainstream science (as Edge points out), and leaving us guessing the units for your spreading rate data (which looks like an inverted plot of the geomag data), you haven't nearly done enough work for this paper to warrant it being called a research paper. Or is it just an article? Even then you have a lot more work to do.You need to look for other forms of supporting evidence, such as the strain and volcanic issues Rockhound mentioned, how your Biblical timeline fits into the mainstream one as Edge asks, Percy's oceanic sedimentation issue, or other things such as:1. is your interpretation consistent with continental paleomag data?2. is your interpretation consistent with all the other spreading centers? Or how does it compare?And this is just a very very short list of things you will have to consider.And...

quote:

---

[6] - Grose, C.J., Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, 2003. In Press

---

In press where?[This message has been edited for clarity by roxrkool, 07-19-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-19-2003]

How perfectly patronizing of you. First of all, I was reviewing TC's paper in that post, not "lecturing" him on the merits of plate tectonic theory.Secondly, I don't presume to think the theory of plate tectonics is flawless. I am fully aware of the convection problems, as well as the difficulties in modeling mantle plumes.Thirdly, no, I don't agree that it is fatally flawed. I think it's too soon to say such a thing. We still have a lot to learn about the chemistry and dynamics of the earth's interior. A few problems don't bother me at this point. Then how would interpret the alignment of magnetized minerals to the poles in recent and ancient rocks? Then I suppose it's good thing we don't have EEs running around collecting geologic paleomag samples, isn't it?? lolIncidentally, since I'm not expert in this field, isn't the strength of magnetic force a different thing entirely from the direction of magnetic force? Well then why don't you publish these astounding findings and topple the elite geologic fraternity? Or have you done so already?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-07-2005 02:56 AM

Oh yeah? The Hydroplate theory? Never heard of that one.

Yes, good catch! And welcome.

Not only do mountain ranges match up from one continent to another, but so do fossil accumulations, stratigraphy, mineral deposits, hydrocarbon deposits, and probably a whole host of other things I'm forgetting. Additionally, the mountain ranges themselves are often evidence of previous tectonic continent-continent collisions.As for the Rockies, the Rockies we see today are actually the youngest of at least one (possiby episodic) earlier episode of orogenic activity in the same vicinity. The Ancestral Rockies were uplifted and deformed and then eroded to almost a peneplain (from which the Maroon Bells and Pennsylvanian/Permian Fountain Fm. conglomeratic/clastic alluvial deposits were sourced and deposited into separate basins), and subsequently thrust up again into what we see today.In some portions of the Rockies, you can still see some of the peneplain where it has been preserved. They stick out like sore thumbs as extensive flattened areas with low rolling hills surrounded by the rugged sharp peaks of the younger Rockies. White Ranch Park Open Space (elevation ~7,000 ft.) is one such place (notice the foreground, not the mesas in the background) - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a nice illustrative picture of the White Ranch area. Another preserved peneplain location is at Rocky Mountain National Park (elevation 12,000+ ft.).Peneplanation of ancestral highlands was not limited to the east-central Rocky Mountains, but incorporated the entire range from north to south and east to west. We have many examples of eroded highlands and adjacent basins containing the eroded material (see: Continent-Continent Collision along the Southern North American Margin: The Ouachita-Marathon Orogeny for more info).When you start digging into the geologic history of a continent, nevermind one little state, the amount of time required to form these various landscapes begins to take hold.There are only two possible solutions to explain the complexities of the global geologic record, either 1) God created the world to appear old, in which case no evidence is possible or necessary, or 2) the Earth IS old, in which case we have ample evidence to support such a position.