Joe, let’s discuss the reliability of drill core methodology and data relating to what you referred to as obvious from both land and sea.
A common response seen in previous posts here is (paraphrased) but there are lots of data and observations to prove plate tectonics theory.
First of all, you err in saying that anything 'proves' plate tectonics. What we say is that the evidence overwhelmingly supports plate tectonics. Now, in a debate, it may be said that plate tectonics is proven, but that is in the scientific sense that it has not been refuted, etc. etc.
But first, let me repeat Edge’s comment in post 127 concerning disciplined testing methodology
Edge writes:
HH: If so, what confidence level do you have that the testing method was subject to the same stringent testing requirements to eliminate bias as say - the medical community?
e: Why would it have to be? All we are talking about is a change of field orientation. It's not like we are measuring toxins to thte PPT range.
Joe - I don't know whether Edge is a geologist but he doesn’t seem to appreciate disciplined testing methodology to eliminate bias.
I see that you still do not get the point. Let me try to rephrase the question that you have ignored: Why should it be necessary to have third decimal place type precision when all we are measuring is direction of field? If core is continuous, or otherwise oriented, and a reversal of field occurs, do we really need to know within micro arc-seconds what the orientation is? I cannot see why for the purposes of this discussion.
Furthermore, how do you explain such a reversal?
Let’s continue.
Yes, let's...
Rock and core samples are commonly proposed as proof of a geomagnetic field reversal.
Ooops, there you go with 'proof' again. Are you sure that you have an understanding of science and scientists?
That would be a good topic for another thread but for now I will provide these references for the validity of geomagnetic measurements on land and sea floors in addition to the questions about potentially flawed methodology, inadvertent or otherwise, in a previous post:
But there are problems: Rocks can be kicked around or moved by tree roots.
Do you really think that geologists and geochronologists haven't thought of this? You really do have little respect for the profession.
The extreme smallness of such magnetism can lead to errors in calculation.
But if we look only at reversals, what is the beef? It either reverses or doesn't regardless of magnitude.
The pointing of these rocks is always somewhat generalized; it is not exactly pointing toward where the pole was at that time.
Of course not. However, that is why we recognize several different variables of magnetic drift. Are you saying that entire tectonic plates have been rotated 180 degrees over a core distance of a few feet or inches? Talk about plate tectonics!
Rocks which have been moved from their original positions can later acquire a secondary magnetic orientation.
Please document. I agree that there can be secondary imposef fields, but the primary TRM or SRM is usually the strongest.
Lightning strikes, pressure, and high temperature can also affect their magnetic settings.
Again, these variablilities can be inferred from other types of data, such as mineralogy, metamorphic textures, and radiometric ages. If I were to measure the TRM of a metamorphic rock, I would not assume that it was the original depositional location that I was calculating.
Many rocks have "anisotropic magnetic properties" and are rather easy to remagnetize.
And the mechanism for this is what? And where does that occur in nature?
In addition, magnetic storms (caused by earth's gravitational field interacting with sunspot radiations) can also result in changes in rock magnetization in a small or very wide area.
Do you have any examples of measured effects? Any references to this? And just how would those storms affect the seafloor?
Lightning strikes can completely reverse the magnetism of the rock.
I suppose this is possible. But I seriously doubt that a pattern would emerge. How many lightning strikes do you think there are on the sea floor?
"Self-reversal" occurs when volcanic rock is cooling; it is known to suddenly reverse polarity! As you can see, paleomagnetism is an inexact science.
Yes, this occurs when a slowly cooling (volcanic) rock experiences a reversal of the imposed field. No big secret here. This is how reversals have been timed.
Good Lord! You call this a credible reference? All of your high rhetoric about scientific precision and you use Pathlights as a supporting document. And you were complaining about my reference to a 'funny' website in an earlier post? This one is not funny, it's pathetic.
And this recent study confirms that even today we have difficulty correctly measuring known historical geomagnetic parameters (comment in parenthesis mine).
Heck, some times I have a hard time measuring my carpets! What is the big deal here? Should we give up on a task because it is difficult? I'm beginning to see where you are coming from.
We report the results of a detailed rock-magnetic study of basaltic andesites for one of the best documented cases of the first occurrence of a new volcano, the 1943-1952 eruption of Paricutin in central Mexico Thellier paleointensity experiments have yielded widely dispersed paleointensity values from the historically observed geomagnetic intensity. ...
So, you have just described some of the issues with paleomagnetic studies. Doesn't this give you a clue that we are aware of the problems and take careful measures to limit them? The point is that there are explanations for the deviations. Now, what is the explanation for the overall patterns that emerge? You will notice, for instance that there were no reversals in this study. Do you think they might have been detected if present?
Interestingly Joe, the study above even threw out the geomagnetic samples that were obviously in error with historic data — and the resulting error was still significant.
Sure, some reasons were not obvious or resolvable, so the kept the results. By the way, I'm sure that many paleomag studies are not from the type of terrain represented by stratovolcanos. Why not address some form sedimentary terranes? Or batholithic terrains with good radiometric control?
Were the same methods used in core analysis of geomagnetic striping in which the samples not agreeing with the assumed knowns were discounted?
No, because the stripes were originally found by towed magnetometers over the sea floor. As such they averaged the various rocks beneath the floor, probably recording mostly the rather structurally undisturbed parts of the subfloor.
This would be flawed methodology, ...
Not really. You have cited a single case which happens to have been in a known structurally complex area. The results are exactly what I would have expected.
...especially if there were other reasonable explanations for the magnetic variations — and there are.
We would love to hear about them. But actually, no. This was really a pretty good way to do it. Believe it or not, geophysicists actually thought about these things before you came along. The ends they go to in order to correct for known issues are not casual.
Methodology is critical for accurate analysis and the art of geomagnetic sample analysis is still struggling with accuracy.
Yes, we have noticed this. It takes a lot of training and structural geology to be able to do this. That is one reason we don't let YECs do this on their own.
Here is a call for new work to help resolve geological and methodological problems with magnetic anisotropy. You may be interested in attending Joe.
If it is so terribly inexact, why then do we see the patterns that we do see? This is where you fall down. There are patterns. Shall we just ignore them because the subject is too hard, or we don't know everything so we actually know nothing?
You could argue alternative methods of dating seafloor samples but the questionable assumptions and reliability of those methods have been discussed at length before. Here is a quick reference on dating rocks for interested laymen:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i8f.htm
Then you might like to participate in another thread on radiometric dating, for instance. By the way, this is another funny site. I'm beginning to see your problem on this board. You do not critically analyze anything that is of YEC origin. Your standards for non-YEC data are considerably more stringent. Why not apply the same standards to Pathlights, for instance?
From the standpoint of the scientific method, there remains the fundamental show-stopper problem explaining how convection could even begin since we cannot build working computer models with realistic physical values!
Please elaborate. What values have been used and what is the problem with them. I think you have evaded this question before by blustering that 'viscosities were ignored' and eventually had to back down on that statement.
From the Royal Astronomical Society
Even with modern supercomputers, models cannot be run with the correct values for several key parameters, which are currently wrong by many orders of magnitude.
The Royal Astronomical Society
The Astronomical Society? Weren't you the guy who was complaining that I couldn't stay on topic? And this has what to do with geology?
Without understanding the mechanisms for support in the foundation (physical laws), most engineers would not even try to build that bridge (claiming geomagnetic seafloor striping).
You're right, let's just ignore the data.
Bridges often collapse when the fundamentals are ignored.
Good, then show us what fundamentals were ignored. YOu were already wrong on viscosities... You keep making this assertion but never back it up with evidence. Please do so or be prepared to no be taken seriously.
In summary, presuming to know a conclusion (geomagnetic proof of seafloor spreading)
Ooops, there you go with 'proof' again! Your true colors as a YEC are showing through.
as fact before the feasibility of a cause (magnetic field reversal) can be established is not sound science.
You have not refuted the methods or the results or the precision necessary to interpret reversals. You simply go of on tangents about 'how difficult it is' to measure magnetic fields as thought we don't know this.
™ Version 4.2