Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

177 Joe Meert Hello Joe!
Thank you for the reference. I went to order the book online but $147 is steeper than I expected. I may order it anyway.
In the meantime, are there published papers that could be reviewed online?Perhaps you could take the concerns I raised (in post 144) about the scientific legitimacy of a proposed geodynamo and geomagnetic field reversals to your colleagues.For your convenience, I will repeat them here:1) There is no support from a classical thermodynamics perspective to believe the viscosity and the thermal diffusivity of iron, nickel, and other elements in the outer core at such extreme pressures could ever result in convection cells.2) Assuming for a moment my objection in (1) was not valid, there is no mechanism to generate the large electrical currents within the proposed geodynamo that could produce the geomagnetic field.3) There are no mechanisms to explain how assumed convection currents in an assumed geodynamo would control the path of the assumed large electrical currents (and the resulting electromagnetic field spatial dimensions). Since the outer core is thought to be mostly iron and nickel, the entire outer core would conduct electrical currents, largely irrespective of supposed convection cells. Even if the electrical resistance of the medium in a convection cell were slightly different than the rest of the medium, we would still see current division and current flow through the entire outer core medium — and more importantly through the relatively stable (no convection currents) inner core!4) Assuming for a moment my objections in (1), (2), and (3) were invalid, any convection current (edited to read "electrical current") generated in the outer (or inner) core would almost immediately be dissipated into heat (at near the speed of light) and would not contribute to any stable geomagnetic field at all - zero! So these assumed large electrical currents — that would be REQUIRED to be controlled by assumed convection cells if there were EVER ANY HOPE of a geomagnetic field reversal would have to be continually generated by a large electrical potential difference (voltage). There is no evidence of anything of that nature - and no mechanism to believe it is so (that I am aware of).Although number 1 is fairly well debated as documented in previous posts, I have not copied these objections from any other website. As far as I know, no one else has expressed numbers 2, 3, and 4. But surly these problems are recognized and have been discussed among geophysicists.Joe, please consult your colleagues, Neil Opdyke and Jim Channell, on these matters. If they have reasonable mechanisms, then I will gladly accept them and view geomagnetic field reversals and seafloor spreading as a more plausible interpretation. Otherwise, plate tectonics theory cannot rest squarely on the geomagnetic striping Hess called "Geopoetry" to be it's "saving mechanism" - as it was viewed forty years ago.Observations and conclusions with no possible mechanism or meaningful explanation are not based on sound scientific method.Without plausible mechanisms within the context of thermodynamics and physics to address these objections — proposed geomagnetic field reversals are only Ptolemic hunches. Ptolemy had plenty of supporting data - but no physical mechanism for his model of a geocentric solar system.Joe, I sincerely want to thank you for your time!Hydroplate HippieThis message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-28-2005 09:23 AM

Hello Simple,
You and NosyNed may have some history together.
I have little tolerance for these petty posts. Your comment added nothing of value. So I must also refer you to join Edge and NosyNed at Michael Moore | Substack!Keep each other occupied please...Thank you in advance.
Hydroplate Hippie

Hello Gengar,
Just a note to thank you for the posts. You do well to focus on the issues at hand. I have five lives outside this forum and one of them is coaching a 7th grade basketball team for fun - two practices and three games this week (undefeated I might add)!
So please bear with me as I like to give your posts the consideration they deserve and respond thoughtfully.
Best to you,
Hippie

Once again, a most excellent analysis Gengar! Your responses make this exchange worth the time. Thanks again. Yes, it is obvious that most participants are either not reading or ignoring the central issues raised here. Other folks on this forum seem to relish a self-appointed intellectual superiority and seem interested more in trashing folks than in exchanging knowledge and information. I much prefer a straight-up technical discussion such as you provide. If not for your posts, I probably would have left this forum already. Variations in speed of seismic waves may be viewed differently (denser=faster, less dense =slower). It may not be valid to assume seismic speeds as a function of temperature alone.Certainly compression can be a factor. If compression is the root cause of the faster seismic measurements, then the compression event presented in the Hydroplate theory is a reasonable alternative interpretation of density (versus slab subduction). In my opinion, the inferred shallow subduction angle (almost horizontal to Colorado) attributed by some (Carleton College: File Not Found) to the proposed Farallon slab subduction - is better explained by compression generated by western motion (and settling) of the North American Plate. I don’t perceive any reasonable mechanisms for proposed nearly horizontal plate subduction so far inland.But then the proposed mechanism for subduction in general has been heavily debated within the geological community in recent years (push, pull, convey, drop).
Low gravitational anomalies over oceanic trenches evidently surprised some folks since older traditional plate tectonic theory proposed plates being shoved into subduction. You are correct Gengar. That is why I qualified the reference to LDEO in post 180 on page 12 with the statement: Although they have not yet discounted mantle flow.The inferred yes conclusion is required - short of abandoning plate tectonics theory (as we know it). It has not been directly observed, measured, or confirmed.My reason for the quote was to point out that the plate tectonics theory is undergoing some significant revision to the point that some Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory researchers are disputing standard textbook geology. In addition: I believe there are significant implications from the reference above. Anyone who thinks the Plate Tectonics theory is "rock solid" aren't paying attention in my opinion. Gengar, I never stated the lightning analogy in post 180 on page 12 was not really relevant. I will repeat my statements here in part for clarity: Just as in a lightning strike, proposed voltage differential in the entire core would be neutralized, current flow stops, and the field collapses — all in microseconds.Any motion in a proposed outer core convection current — even in a highly conductive medium - will not regenerate or sustain the voltage potential difference, electrical current, or electromagnetic field.This is one of several reasons no one has proposed a plausible mechanism for geodynamo controlled geomagnetic fields.Evidently, when the geological community embraced Hess’ geopoetry as clear evidence of geomagnetic field reversals and seafloor spreading — they had not thought through how this relates to physical laws.Now, we are faced with a paradigm inferred largely from a hypothesis (magnetic striping caused by geomagnetic pole reversals) with no reasonable solution. It fails the test of science. The core and our local power station are not similar. The core, consisting largely of solid and liquid iron, would be one massive instantaneous short circuit.All the electrical energy would be dissipated as heat in the blink of an eye - just like a lightning strike.The generators at our local power station would also convert all of their energy into heat, burn up all the components, and cease to conduct electrical current in a short circuit condition (if fuses or breakers didn’t quickly open the circuit). Gengar, you have the best approach on this forum.

• Generally agree with the Rayleigh convection. However, the critical number is a function of geometry and the assumptions of incompressibility and uniform gravitational force. http://engr.smu.edu/~arunn/html/convect/rbconvect/rbcon.html
• With respect for your diligence and persistence, I am doing some more detailed review on the assumptions and parameters in your calculations. Need more time there.
• Agree on inductive current (use it all the time).

That is an excellent point Gengar but one that I didn’t forget. I examined the mechanisms in detail relative to all paradigms and possibilities for the geomagnetic field.But first, the magnetic field as a property of the inner core is not a function of my clear preference or desire to do away with reversals.Sound science is my preference — regardless of whatever philosophy or paradigm it may support.The inner core configuration is the only feasible configuration that works to produce the geomagnetic field we observe - within the constraints of physical laws — that I have been able to determine.The geomagnetic field having a different axis from the crust rotation axis is one of several unexplained phenomena that I had puzzled over for many years. When I stumbled on the Hydroplate theory in an unrelated Google search, it presented the first rational explanation I had seen. Still, I welcome proposed alternative mechanisms.Since you have questioned the viability of this configuration, I will briefly sketch the proposed working hypothesis. You will need to study additional details yourself if you are interested.It requires a reconsideration of some assumptions many folks currently infer as "known" within the Plate Tectonics paradigm.The currently favored view for Earth evolution is that Earth was once a molten liquid mass. If that were true, the heavier metals should have sunk deep toward the core. A ton of uranium equals roughly a ball only a foot in diameter at Earth’s surface (someone check my memory here please - anyway, it's dense!). We should not find thick veins of heavier metals such as gold in the Rocky mountains — not even geologically associated with volcanic activity. (Some may say with enough time - anything is possible but that is a stretch, in my opinion).British geologist Arthur Holmes (1890 — 1965), hypothesized that heat generated in the Earth by radioactive decay might cause convection of rocks in the mantle. Radiogenic material is inferred in the core to provide a heat source for convection currents and proposed geodynamo generated electrical currents responsible for the geomagnetic field.Incidentally, I read one interesting paper from an Austrailian geophysicist who asserted global warming was preventing adequate cooling of the radioactive core and that the core may reach critical mass and blow Earth to bits. (So I may have to give up smoking cigars.)Seriously (again), as I have asserted in this forum, there is no mechanism that has been proposed that would produce the geomagnetic field from a dynamo. Therefore, the possibility (IMO - likelihood) exists that inferred radiogenic material is not much more bountiful in the interior of the Earth (on average) than we find on the surface. If that is true, then there is likely an alternative source for the heat in Earth’s interior.The proposed mechanism is friction heat from shifting mass under high pressure. If we scrape a single brick on end across an inch of concrete on the sidewalk, we generate some heat and the sidewalk is slightly warmed. However, if we were able to stack a column of bricks many miles high and scrape it an inch on the sidewalk — the concrete is burned or melted by the friction heat.As we have agreed in this thread, the pressure at the center of Earth’s core is approximately zero — mass is pulled outward in all directions. Therefore, if the innermost core is not a stockpile of radiogenic material, it will not be inherently hot.As we move outward toward the mantle, the pressure increases significantly and we would expect more heat due to pressure. Consider the map here and analyze certain features in light of the following text: The Hydroplate theory proposes that mass shifted through the Earth from the Western Pacific toward the rising (ballooning outward) Atlantic floor.If we consider the horizontal axis of the map to be 360 degrees, then we can visualize various features at relative 180 degrees apart. This shifting of mass would have required tremendous forces and would have resulted in friction heat melting material in the core.Segments of metals with higher melting points would have sunk toward the center to form a solid core. Depending on the pattern of movement (along paths of least resistance), it is conceivable that relatively large segments sunk inward.Proposed magnetized heavier components would not have melted and would have at least partially aligned with other core components magnetically while settling into the core.As the heavier metals converged downward to the inner core, conservation of momentum resulted in a faster core spin (of which we now have evidence). I believe the Curie point would be higher since metals have a higher melting point under pressure - increasing radially outward through the inner core.Although the reference below adheres to the hot radiogenic core paradigm, the concept of core cooling may be valid just the same. If that is not the case, then we can only assume the inner core has not reached melt temperature for its constituent components. Notice in the map above the appearance that the entire Western Pacific has been collapsed downward.The Ring of Fire around the Pacific denotes where the primary faulting has occurred in arcs and cusps as would be expected if the entire plate is pulled down.The Hydroplate theory has stated for many years that gravitation and rotational balancing forces continue to slowly drive mass through the Earth's interior toward the bulging Atlantic from the sunken western Pacific (especially the deep trenches) on the opposite side of the Earth.We also see an anomalous gravitational deficiency around the trenches as we would expect with a downward pull. Now view the actual GPS data that has since been made available:
Click for enlarged imageWe see with few exceptions, almost all mass moving toward the Western Pacific to achieve balance in agreement with the Hydroplate Theory.Even with the few exceptions, notice whether the anomalous direction of movement is toward a depressed area and whether some causation may be roughly 180 degrees away on the map.How many predictions from the Plate Tectonics theory were at odds with the data we now see here? Perhaps Joe Meert could answer that for us (predictions before such wide scale data was available).Consider again the first map in this post. According to the Hydroplate theory, the fairly rapid compression event thickened and crushed plates, creating mountain ranges. This rapid compression resulted in the most massive surface imbalance at the Himalayan Mountains and the Tibetan Plateau in the Northern Hemisphere.This centrifugal imbalance caused the crust of the Earth to roll the Himalayan range toward the rotational axis equator. As this roll occurred, the stress in the crust (as it moved relatively quickly and stretched through the equatorial centrifugal buldge) during the roll produced the rupture or suture known as the "90 East Ridge".The southern part of the 90 East ridge indicates the approximate location of the previous equator and the unusual "fairly straight line" of the ridge points to the Himalayan range and plateau as the prime mover. The linear direction of the roll (toward the equator to achieve better inertial balance) is marked as a result of the centrifugal forces rolling the crust after the mountain range was pushed upward. Very few (relatively) straight lines occur in nature. What is the Plate Tectonics explanation for the "90 East Ridge"?This proposed roll did not affect the core and this is why the crust rotational axis and the core rotational axis are different today.Granted, this configuration is not likely to have existed and sustained a geomagnetic field for billions of years (due to friction losses). However, the known decrease in current field strength is expected with this configuration.Gengar, the Hydroplate theory presents the ONLY rational configuration I have found to explain geomagnetism observations today. If that were not the case, I would probably have ignored it. However, it breaks currently held paradigms. In my opinion, any valid criticism should include an alternative configuration for the geomagnetic field - with well understood mechanisms.If there is another configuration with reasonable mechanisms, I am very anxious to hear about it!Otherwise, the Plate Tectonics paradigm is no better and (at least with respect to mechanisms) not as strong - in my view. Yes, very informative!
Unfortunately, I’m just stubborn enough to require a feasible mechanism before I can embrace the possibility of geomagnetic reversals. As an engineer, I’ve been burned too many times with assumptions.As I said, your thoughtful posts make the time here worthwhile and thanks again!{Big Grin} If you ever get around the Ozarks, you are welcome to visit and stay a while! Would enjoy meeting you.You name the ale and the entertainment — on me!Hydroplate HippieThis message has been edited by Admin, 02-16-2005 14:35 AM

You already know of some who recognize fundamental problems with Plate Tectonics theory and adhere to alternatives such as expanding Earth.
Not sure how well known he is but here is a quote from one emeritus geology professor: You will likely meet more in the future.Joe, a hypothesis requires a cause/effect relationship to be tested. You have failed to identify a plausible mechanism (cause) for a geodynamo to produce the proposed geomagnetic reversals (effect). Therefore, Hess’ geopoetry used to infer seafloor spreading does not pass the hypothesis test. We have not been able test - or even model - a mechanism. This discussion reveals that a mechanism has not even been properly identified or defined within the context of fundamental laws. Yes, I am aware of that Joe - but some of your geological companions on this forum don’t seem to be. The recent literature is likely motivated, at least in part, by the realization that supposed convection currents are not an adequate driving mechanism for continental movement. Attempts to model plates driven by mantle convection with realistic parameters have all failed. And what are the alternative driving mechanisms to plate tectonics (convection currents). gravity and centrifugal force. The Hydroplate theory has asserted that from the start. Are you proposing that any scientific hypothesis that may coincide with a particular philosophy must automatically be suppressed? That is absurd. All hypotheses are designed to test an idea or an assumption Joe. The scientific method, when properly applied to test a hypothesis, is oblivious to whether the hypothesis was inspired by atheistic philosophy, Jews, Muslims, or the Wizard of Oz! If a young evolutionist (such as Brown) working near the Rocky mountains becomes intrigued to investigate a mechanism that could submerge those mountains... (and possibly lend support to a religious myth) does that disqualify his ideas or make him evil? Let’s focus on the science at hand rather than philosophy Joe.If you can demonstrate the Hydroplate theory is scientifically invalid — then knock yourself out Joe! If it is silly mythical stuff, then you should be able to nail it to the wall scientifically. My review of criticisms has failed to do that so far. It is best if we analyze feasible mechanisms and let the philosophers hash out the implications.

Joe, unless you or someone else can propose - at least - one plausible mechanism that geomagnetic reversals occur with respect to the four problems I have presented in Post 192 on page 13 I maintain they are more than puzzles. They are potential show stoppers. Agreed on the geomagnetic field but not on proposed geomagnetic pole reversals. Until someone can demonstrate how a pole reversal could possibly occur while respecting the laws of physics — pole reversals are only conjecture (at best).If you read previous posts, there are other reasonable mechanisms to explain field strength variation — even with patterns. Some may consider it disingenuous to claim your paradigm or worldview is true without being able to explain how it could possibly be so.Useless and misleading Joe? Your logic fails me. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis withstand testing — regardless of anyone’s paradigms and preferred worldviews. This testing can take many forms such as modeling whereby the real world physical laws are applied. Theories often have to be modified or discarded in the face of faulty assumptions or failed support from application of known laws.I agree that it is not true that all proposals should be taken as equal Joe. Proposals that have reasonable mechanisms with respect to physical laws (in a causal relationship) are normally favored over proposals that do not. Wouldn’t you agree? No Joe. The second states clearly that we do not have any proposed mechanisms for generating a geomagnetic field. We all agree that dynamos and Maxwell’s equations are well established.I have asked the same questions repeatedly and you have not been able to propose one plausible mechanism for generating and sustaining a geomagnetic field with a dynamo and Maxwell’s equations.Even assuming a dynamo occurs in the relatively viscous outer core and the mantle convects heat (despite the failure of all attempts to build realistic cause and effect computer models), Ohms’ Law presents a big problem in a proposed direct short circuit geodynamo configuration. Please give me one example anywhere in which a dynamo of any type can be demonstrated to maintain a regenerating current flow over time (experimentally or otherwise).Perhaps you missed post 180 where I explained why Maxwell’s equations (and Ohm’s Law) cannot support a proposed geodynamo generated geomagnetic field reversal.I will repeat it for you here: This will be a rather long post but bear with me... Joe, the Earth’s magnetic field does not behave like a dynamo as you say. Electrical current flow behaves according to Ohm’s law - period. There seems to be a consistent propensity on the part of you and others to confuse proposed liquid iron convection dynamo theory with electrical current flow.Sustained electrical current flow is not feasible since the core would be essentially a direct short circuit and electrical current would instantly dissipate into heat — collapsing the geomagnetic field.You must have a means of generating voltage (via a practically infinite voltage source) to perpetually induce electrical currents on the order required for the geomagnetic field.The answer (especially since we cannot even guess at the particulars without a lot of non-scientific hand waving) is NOT a resounding Yes as you state above unless you can provide a clue as to how that might be. It is a much bigger problem than not knowing the particulars. It is a fundamental problem with no foundation in physics.Let’s summarize When you joined this debate in post 134 on page 9 Joe, you referred to my assertion that the geomagnetic poles have not reversed as bizarre. Yet you have not been able to describe how your position concerning geomagnetic pole reversals could ever work. Now you are saying that you don’t know the particulars of your inferred "facts".Don’t sweat it Joe. I don’t take this stuff personal and neither should you. We do know Earth has a magnetic field. However, with all due respect Joe, we know nothing of the sort concerning three billion years and periodic geomagnetic reversals.In addition, I assume you meant to say aperiodic reversals since there is nothing periodic about the data you interpret as magnetic striping and seafloor spreading (according to current plate tectonic theory). Agreed on both counts Joe. Your statement reveals your motivation for claiming pole reversals via geodynamo despite a lack of physical mechanisms.If you have already concluded the age of the Earth to be over three billion years, then you have no other alternative but to assume a dynamo mysteriously generates huge electrical currents as a source for the geomagnetic field (ignoring the constraints of physics).Whether intentional or not, it appears you are imputing a force fit of scientific causation into a paradigm or dogma.Actually, that amount of time (3 billion years) is inferred by you and others based on other assumptions. There are many other lines of evidence refuting that amount of time.If you cannot propose a mechanism for a geomagnetic field sustained and reversed by electrical currents there is only one scientific alternative Joe (besides championing an unworkable hypothesis).The only alternative would be a core consisting of magnetized material spinning at a different axis and velocity relative to the crust. And as you correctly stated, that configuration could not be 3 billion years old and it would not reverse polarity.When we exchanged emails long ago concerning the age of the Earth Joe, you referred me to Tim Thompson’s moon recession model as a solution of the moon recession problem with supposed billions of Earth age years.I studied Thompson’s model in detail and was stunned to see that Tim’s solution was to place all Earth’s land mass in a continuous band at the equator or, alternatively, as a single mass only at the pole(s).Tim stated this configuration would simplify the math. Well, it does simplify the math - but it also conveniently eliminates the source of primary transfer of energy between the Earth/Moon system (oceanic/continental tidal interactions) to support his conclusion (present Earth/moon relationship could realistically have existed over four billion years).I was also disappointed to see Tim’s statement that the problem was so complex that he had to develop some new math (Laplace transforms) to solve the problem. Of course, Laplace transforms have been around for ages and have been commonly used in engineering for many decades.I emailed Thompson with my comments but, as I recall, never received a reply. The Earth/moon relationship — among others - remains a significant problem for a supposed 4.6 billion year age but that is a topic for others in another discussion. This is potentially the classic and most common error made when applying the scientific method - assigning causation (geomagnetic pole reversals) to observations (magnetic anomalies).Yes, we DO observe magnetic anomalies for which there are other plausible explanations. I have previously given several alternatives for causation but here is yet another: Although this phenomena cannot be proposed as a sustaining source of Earth’s magnetic field for reasons I have previously given, it could potentially have some localized effects on ferrous material.Attributing anomalies to a reversing geomagnetic field without proposing a single mechanism as to how a reversal could actually occur is inductive reasoning and cannot be set into a valid hypothesis.Let's review the scientific method (some emphasis mine): As you may know Joe, Earth science is not the only discipline for which the Hydroplate theory has predictions.To my knowledge, The hydroplate theory was the only source that correctly predicted traces of saltwater would be found on Mars.Other predictions are pretty bold and counter to current paradigms. A planned landing and direct sampling of a comet by 2012 should be very interesting. Continuing with your post Joe, this is what I have referred to as Rathergate science (insisting the story is true even though we do not have the proper mechanism or documentation). Your logic escapes me Joe. You have failed to propose a single known mechanism in response to my repeated requests detailed in the four objections of post 192. Did you consult with your colleagues as I had requested?Seems to me those questions are fundamental and should be a main topic for future symposiums. It is a fact there has been no known workable mechanism presented in this discussion! Therefore, my statement stands as unequivocally TRUE until you can provide any such mechanism that respects classical physical laws. This is truly getting long and redundant — but I must respond to each of your points.I have not denied the Earth has a magnetic field Joe. Obfuscation does not solve the problem. Please don’t muddle the issue.The question at hand is whether the geomagnetic field is caused by electrical current flow in a proposed geodynamo and how the geomagnetic poles could have possibly reversed. Questions 2-4 are the right questions and they stand - unanswered.When you say we proceed along lines of enquiry that will bear fruit based on first-order observations your inquiry should include whether the first-order observations can be attributed to causation other than those you have inferred.A sound scientific approach should avoid pursuing fruit only in support of the lines of inquiry of our inferred causation to observations (paradigms). There are many examples of failure along that path. Joe, with respect to scientific laws, we might as well be asking Hmm, how does water consistently defy gravity and naturally flow uphill in a river? Sustained localized anti-gravity?I am not trying to make light of the issue here Joe but you are talking about direct violation of fundamental physical laws. That is truly the magnitude of the problem with self-reversing electromagnetic fields generated and sustained by a proposed geodynamo. The focus has been precisely on those questions Joe — for a long time now. There appears to be no solution offered by anyone.Doesn’t the fact that no one can even suggest a possible cause & effect hypothesis give you reason to ponder whether you really know geodynamo generated geomagnetic pole reversals have occurred?After forty years of searching for the magic mechanism it’s time to reconsider the conclusions Joe, and ask different questions along a new line of inquiry that at least has a possibility of bearing fruit within the context of known physical laws!Hess’ geopoetry may have sounded good initially, but it has no rhyme or reason with respect to mechanisms!The sooner we acknowledge this dilemma apparently has no reasonable solution, the sooner we can cease wishful thinking - and move on toward a better understanding of our world.Thanks for your time Joe.
Hydroplate Hippie

185 NosyNed Hello Ned. AND a mechanism??? Well, don’t hold back on us Ned! By all means, please share with us what Tuzo Wilson’s mechanism was at the meeting that could resolve these fundamental problems:1) There is no support from a classical thermodynamics perspective to believe the viscosity and the thermal diffusivity of iron, nickel, and other elements in the outer core at such extreme pressures could ever result in convection cells.2) Assuming for a moment my objection in (1) was not valid, there is no mechanism to generate the large electrical currents within the proposed geodynamo that could produce the geomagnetic field.3) There are no mechanisms to explain how assumed convection currents in an assumed geodynamo would control the path of the assumed large electrical currents (and the resulting electromagnetic field spatial dimensions). Since the outer core is thought to be mostly iron and nickel, the entire outer core would conduct electrical currents, largely irrespective of supposed convection cells. Even if the electrical resistance of the medium in a convection cell were slightly different than the rest of the medium, we would still see current division and current flow through the entire outer core medium — and more importantly through the relatively stable (no convection currents) inner core!4) Assuming for a moment my objections in (1), (2), and (3) were invalid, any electrical current generated in the outer (or inner) core would almost immediately be dissipated into heat (at near the speed of light) and would not contribute to any stable geomagnetic field at all - zero! So these assumed large electrical currents — that would be REQUIRED to be controlled by assumed convection cells if there were EVER ANY HOPE of a geomagnetic field reversal would have to be continually generated by a large electrical potential difference (voltage). There is no evidence of anything of that nature - and no mechanism to believe it is so (that I am aware of).In all fairness, Gengar has posted some worthy analysis for item 1 above. Whether it is valid or not, the remaining issues still leave proposed geomagnetic pole reversals "dead in the water" with respect to fundamental physics. Ned... unless you can establish a mechanism for a Cause/Effect relationship for the supposed geomagnetic pole reversals (cause) and seafloor spreading (effect) — you don’t even have a valid hypothesis.Was a mechanism for Hess' "geopoetry" and inferred geomagnetic pole reversals even discussed in the mid-sixties Ned? I am really interested in your response specifically to the issues above.

196 Admin Director (Percy) Percy, are you are implying that members are prohibited from noting particularly poor debate techniques such as attacking the person — not the problem? If an individual persists in mindless attacks and wasting everyone’s time, then it seems appropriate to refer them to a site where those tactics are in vogue and expected (Michael Moore | Substack). Please be specific in future admonitions if you are directing them to my posts. I am striving to exchange knowledge and understanding through discussion and have little time for insults and cat fights. If I have violated any guidelines, then please point them out to me specifically by name. I’m a big boy I can take it!With respect to your authority as administrator, I truly appreciate this forum and the service you provide here.Hydroplate Hippie

197 JazznsHello Jazzns. I'll do my best... If you read previous posts, you will see some alternative explanations for patterns in geomagnetic field strength fluctuations. I have provided a reference that found a significant correlation to seafloor topography and geomagnetic field strength — better than the proposed field reversal bands.Also, according to at least some in the geological community, the geology textbooks you likely are referring to need to be revised.Perhaps you missed the earlier quote from the LDEO (The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) is a leading research institution where more than 200 research scientists seek fundamental knowledge about the origin, evolution and future of the natural world). Note - some emphasis mine: I would add that I believe it is not only extremely difficult but actually impossible to ever model subduction using realistic parameters. If you give it an objective critical analysis — the whole scenario seems unworkable for several reasons.Intuitively, I would expect to see a LOT more deadly tsunamis if so much mass was actually being subducted annually on seafloors by whichever mechanism plate tectonics theory happens to favor today (pushing, conveying, dropping, or pulling).Likewise to the LDEO reference above, we’ve all seen the very nice linear symmetric bands illustrating geomagnetic reversals and seafloor spreading in the textbooks... but have you ever seen a topographical map showing the actual magnetometer fluctuations? We really need to get some actual maps posted here - of real data! It is not like the textbooks illustrate, especially when viewing the entire ridge as a whole.Where patterns are noticeable, such as the Juan de Fuca Ridge picture in Post 173, the geomagnetic field strength fluctuations are more likely associated with deep parallel crevices and other seafloor topology. Have you considered what other factors may explain the observations? What about weather patterns and rainfall differences as a start relatively hard crystalline basement composition of the Rockies? You could probably think of some others. How many changes have been required in recent years concerning what we know about the fossil record?What percent of the fossil record of all the multiple strata below the surface of all Earth’s continents do you figure has been examined?I put more stock in understanding working mechanisms and physical laws to propose at least one plausible explanation for geomagnetic pole reversals and seafloor spreading before I start counting Marsupials as convincing evidence.How many sediments were misdated with the formerly impeccable index fossils of the Coelecanth? As you probably know, the Coelecanth was thought to be extinct for 65-80 million years along with the dinosaurs (when the Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record) until a fisherman caught a live one in the mouth of the Chalumna River.Interesting how the Coelecanth was considered to be our evolutionary human ancestor, yet had remained virtually unchanged during that inferred extinction period recorded in the fossil record — while mankind was supposedly evolving rapidly from a fish to some (yet unidentified) small simian animal and finally getting smart enough to code written language only about five thousand years ago (approximately 125 generations).I know that evolution is supposedly a random process and I am a former believer in the theory (knew every alleged hominid discovered - including Nebraska man), but this begins to sound like a philosophy to me rather than science. How does the Hydroplate Hypothesis address these in order to overturn the classical model regarding plate tectonics? Great question Jazzns! You will need to study the details for yourself but I will briefly answer your question.The Hydroplate theory says all land and oceanic mass is slowly shifting toward the Western pacific (especially the deep trenches) to achieve spherical equilibrium.Mass is pulled downward in the entire western pacific plate and shifting toward the ballooning Atlantic ridge on the opposite side of Earth Just Google recent GPS data on the actual movements (or see the illustration in my earlier post to Gengar).The mechanism is not proposed convection currents, seafloor striping" by mysteriously unexplained electrical currents, or plate subduction, but rather the combination of gravity and centrifugal force.The crust is slowly moving toward the Western Pacific. According to the Hydroplate theory, major earthquakes are a function of gravitational forces - making the Earth more compact. Consequently, we would expect a minor increase in Earth rotation speed as apparently observed in the recent South-East Asian event. Even the classical plate tectonics theory is changing to attribute a significant plate driving component to gravitational forces (see LDEO reference above) now that we are getting more data.Concerning the Hawaiian island chain and a supposed mysteriously stationary hot spot (some emphasis mine) The following reference supports the Hydroplate theory very well. And this one as well... In other words, considering all the problems and questions with respect to proposed hotspots, Pacific island chains are likely to be a product of the pacific plate fracturing as it is being pulled downward in cusps and arcs as described in the Hydroplate theory.Incidentally, one of the many bold predictions of the Hydroplate theory is that a properly administered blind test will refute the age progression of the Hawaiian island chain. To my knowledge, this has not been done. Someone will likely undertake it before long. If the prediction is true and verified - hotspot hypotheses will have essentially been scientifically falsified.Best to you,
Hydroplate Hippie

199 QuetzelHello Quetzel.The truly surprising thing to me on this forum is how the current paradigm - with no identified working mechanisms - is embraced with comments similar to this (from another thread) Sounds like everything is pretty well figured out and settled? Far from it!As I see it - if the current views of geodynamo generated geomagnetic pole reversals were analogous to an airplane — there would be no wings — and it wouldn’t fly.It appears to me there is a huge opportunity for real scientific progress here. Huge!How do we embrace paradigms such as geomagnetic pole reversals - devoid of plausible cause/effect mechanisms?Do we know these things by inferred association from analysis of marsupial migration... drawing conclusions from an incomplete and ever changing fossil record? I agree with you Quetzel. It is weird if you are presenting this as evidence that the geomagnetic poles have reversed.Although your comments are interesting, I personally don’t put much stock in marsupial migration relative to the topic at hand here — physical laws and supposed reversing geomagnetic polarity. Incidentally, even if the fossil record were complete and correctly interpreted, we should ask whether there are alternative explanations for the migration patterns to have occurred. I believe there are, but you will need to investigate that for yourself.Best to you,
Hydroplate Hippie

200 RoxrcoolHello Rox No question - some huge catastrophic collision forces are evident. Yup, my wife and I sliced through a section south of Routh National Park on our Valkyrie motorcycle last August. In one beautiful long straight section we breezed at about 120 mph. Great vacation getaway. Highly recommended! I am asking for answers to the four questions I have posted (in 192 on page 13) for the mechanism driving the supposed geomagnetic field reversals that are proposed as evidence representing millions of years of seafloor spreading.Why are millions of years required to build a mountain range from a tectonic collision? In my view, only Huge Forces are required.Actually, a rapid collision is more likely to crush and buckle the weakest plate sections (on such an incredible scale) than a slow one.A slow tectonic collision over millions of years would tend to produce less spectacular creeping flow (more evenly distributed forces covering wider areas over time).A catastrophic and intense collision over a short period more likely results in crushed and tossed sections - producing mountains as viewed with the intensity of the Rockies. But that is a topic for another discussion. Let’s focus on the mechanisms for reversals. Roxrcool, based on the lengthy discussions in this thread and others, I would add a third possible solution:3) We have inferred approximately 4.6 billion years of age on the Earth and have arbitrarily made assumptions and interpreted some observations to support our conclusion — without seriously considering certain conflicting data, required mechanisms or alternative interpretations.I’m not implying any malice or intentional error here Roxrcool.My experience is we tend to interpret various observations within the context of what we assume to be true. We (including myself) have a tendency to search, interpret, and embrace those things that fit within our preconceived cognitive worldview.When we experience evidence or arguments that counter our personal paradigms — we experience cognitive dissonance. And we tend to deal with cognitive dissonance in a number of ways — most of them counter-productive - i.e. ignore or discount the conflicting data, attack the character or the credibility of the source of conflicting data, etc.Personally, my mental health or well being is not a function of whether the Earth is very old or not. It is simply a fascinating topic that I enjoy analyzing.Best to you Roxrcool,
Hydroplate Hippie

201 JazznsGreetings Jazzns The real mountain of a problem (at least in this thread) seems to be answering the questions I have posed for any possible physical mechanism to create and sustain electrical current flows resulting in a reversing geomagnetic field!You guys are getting terribly off topic with marsupials and such.Genetic isolation and dominant/recessive traits in a population can change almost overnight. The peppered moth didn’t take eons of time to evolve during the Industrial Revolution. After only a few generations, the specimens that had inherited the combinations of pre-existing DNA for darker characteristics survived. Same genetic species, same old moth.So marsupial migration doesn’t carry much weight with me. Also, the Hydroplate theory accommodates migration patterns just fine but you will need to examine that in detail for yourself. Jazzns, you evidently haven’t studied the Hydroplate theory much (if at all), since it predicts slow moving plates (not driven by convection currents) with predominant movement toward the western pacific and the trenches.How many predictions from the Plate Tectonics theory required revision in recent years to better fit the GPS data? The Hydroplate theory was formulated before the GPS data was available, but has not required revision. Prediction is a powerful measure of validity.I subjected the Hydroplate theory to scrutiny and, in my opinion, it has understandable mechanisms within the context of thermodynamics and physics. Traditional Plate Tectonics theory relative to geomagnetic pole reversals and seafloor spreading does not have understandable mechanisms — unless you have answers for the issues raised to you and others.The lurkers can scrutinize this thread and decide for themselves what is nonsense as you say. This is a typical response from someone who has no answers just change the subject and start attacking people rather than problems.The scientific method, when properly applied, is blind to religion and public education. It has no agenda. Jazzns, you are not adding any substance to this exchange of knowledge and understanding.If you desire to discuss politics and call people liars, I can only refer you to Michael Moore | Substack where that style is expected.Of course I am not the administrator here Jazzns, so you are free to come and go as you please. My time is too limited for off topic ad hominem rants.So I respectfully request that you give more thought and consideration in future responses here.Please address the four questions Jazzns. If you can propose even one plausible mechanism to explain how a proposed geodynamo could cause and sustain the geomagnetic field to the point of reversal — resulting in the conclusion of seafloor spreading — then you will have my attention. Best to you,
Hydroplate Hippie

203 GengarAlways refreshing to see your posts Gengar! Yes, of course. Thanks for the good illustration! I should have searched that myself before bringing it up. Yes I did. Good reference Gengar. I expected the field would exhibit a lot of normal variation for several reasons including wobble, difference in crust rotation axis combined with equatorial bulge (variable mass differential relative to magnetic axis), and magnetic interactions with various radial densities/compositions combined with surface topologies, etc. Gengar, this is informative and I understand the concept. Are you proposing that reversed (upward pointing) magnetization attributed to geomagnetic field reversal is the only explanation for lower than average field strength measurements at the north Atlantic surface?Do you agree there could be other causes such as topography and deeper basement effects as you alluded to in an earlier post?The question (at least in my mind) is the root cause(s) of anomalies — even when some samples may indicate opposite polarity. I have submitted other potential causes for anomalies in previous posts that exclude a geomagnetic pole reversal (which appears to have no understood mechanism).I hope I am not sounding too redundant in my posts. Sometimes, I write a little extra and repeat myself so that lurkers passing by can pick up more easily on the topic if they are interested - that is not normally my style.When are you coming to the States again Gengar?Best to you,
Hydroplate Hippie

213 Crashfrog WOW, THAT’S AWESOME! You guys have just validated in one sentence what it has taken me many posts to detail.Plate Tectonics paradigm (based on supposed seafloor spreading as interpreted by inferred geomagnetic reversals) triumphs over the laws of physics (or at least our understanding of the laws of physics)!I've never heard anyone in any other scientific discipline hold forth such wisdom (and I've been around a while).The laws of fundamental physics are the most solid and reliable laws known in the scientific realm.And most would agree the laws of fundamental physics are very predictable and very well understood.To assert that one’s inferred causation assigned to evidence (worldview) triumphs over physical law is not an enviable position to claim with respect to the scientific method.This discussion has fully served its purpose unless someone can answer the points raised in post 192 and hopefully ....... rescue the laws of physics!I've enjoyed the visit here and I have invested a considerable amount of time. Now I'm returning to spend more time with my family and my other obligations.Gengar - email me if you are ever in the area. I owe you some ale!It's been real. Keep learning and always question everything... because sometimes... We don't know what we don't "know"!Supposing is good but finding out is better. (Mark Twain)Best to you all,
Hydroplate Hippie