Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

quote:

---

Well, how about in post #1, where you stated:

​

--Concluding I assert that "Why we see all of this does not fit well with uniformitarian plate tectonics, however is easily explained with an episode of CPT."

​

[Snip]

​

Umm, yes, you should. Please interpret the above quote if it does not say what I think it says.

---

--To some degree, I stand corrected. In my 'conclusion' that you emphasis from post #1 yes I did indeed assert that these observations(in the geomagnetic record and its origin[especially relating to the changing frequency over the GPTS]) seemed more compatible with an episode of CPT than uniformitarian PT. While this is true, your assertion that I "have no problem saying that CPT explains natural observations[plural - TC] better than conventional Plate Tectonics" seemed to me very general. I percieved that you were implying that I think we can explain all geologic (and data from other sciences) phenomena easier by an episode of CPT as opposed to uniformitarian geology. In interpreting your assertion in this way I was inclined to deny it uprightly as I did--and under that interpretation I would still deny it uprightly.

quote:

---

Well, let's see what you actually said in post 59:

​

"--Basically I said that my speculation that we can infer the rate of seafloor spreading from geomagnetic data was wrong. I came to this conclusion during my absence since I last posted in this thread (through independent studies)."

​

Please give us another interpreation of this quote if it does not mean that you can no longer use the geomagnetic data to infer the rate of sea floor spreading. As I read it, you admitted that your speculation was wrong. If you did not, then you need to make yourself more clear in writing.

---

It was my logic to conclude that my speculation regarding the geomagnetic polarity time scale was wrong, though I certainly didn't conclude that 'since you can no longer do that, it would be logical for you to say that perhaps CPT is a fiction.." That was your logic."As I stated. It applies to models which have some explanatory power and are not otherwise inaccurate."
--You don't think runaway subduction has potential falsification, or that it has explanatory power? You earlier asserted that:

quote:

---

"But a model should also not create effects that are contrary to observations. Clearly, Baumgardner's model does exactly that. "

---

--Heres your chance to support it. Your obviously the tectonophysics genious, so lets see your thesis on the subject."Then explain how the heat produced by CPT is explained away by Baumgardner. I have not heard an explanation of this, though it may be that one now exists."
--Be more specific. Heat produced by..?"To the contrary. You have NO results."
--No really? Results come subsequent to research.

quote:

---

Keep in mind, I am 17,...

---

"I am quite aware of this. Kind of hard to miss."
--Oh let me guess.. pun intended? What a funny guy you are.."Actually, it is not my problem. It is yours. I don’t really care all that much other than that I am trying to show you the error of your reasoning. You should not fall in love with a model and become confused as to what it really means. I reiterate that your model is not evidence and really cannot see that it is based on evidence."
--Too bad this has nothing to do with an 'infatuation for mathematical models'."I’m sure that they have the experience to not become overly involved with their numerical models. This is a common trap for the unseasoned."
--And what would be your method for deducing whether they are overly involved with numerical models? As far as I can tell, they are as involved as you can get."That is part of the problem. You have used a predicted outcome to formulate the model. The model itself should be predictive. What does your model predict?"
--First it is necessary to experiment on the varables. For example, rapidly sprading oceanic lithosphere was probably cooled by convection from hydrothermal circulation, but it cannot yet be reasonable modeled exactly how effective this means of cooling would be because of a currently poor understanding of the reactions involved. Hence this places constraints on our ability to estimate lithospheric thickness or ocean floor bathymetry as a function of age. This does not mean that we cannot draw preliminary conclusions, form hypothetical situations that could be potentially falsified, or even find what would be required in order to explain the observations and then see how feasible these requirements are in light of the experimental and observational research.I only know of 1 person who is working on the shock hydrodynamics of it, so it could take some time.

"To actually explain WHY your responses did not answer the question you would need to explain WHY you were unable to provide an answer repeatedly."
--Or just possibly... why I was hesitant to do so. I exactly have a lot of time on my hands."Since you should have known or had the information to hand (because it was a key part of your hypothesis) and since actually writing the answer would not have taken longet than writing the responses you DID provide I see no reason to believe that."
--Well then don't believe it. I could really care less. I am sorry if I was hesitant to give you your answer, I assumed that you probably didn't care anymore. If you wanted it so bad, why didn't you check the sources I had been citing?"Indeed I should not even have had to ask."
--This is an internet forum, our posts are not being published in rigorously peer reviewed science journals. If you have a question, no problem in asking or looking for the answer yourself in the relevant literature. I explained why I was hesitant to answer your question because I didn't know if you really cared that much. Since I was reassured that you do with your post 55, I provided you with your answer 50 minutes later."It should have been explicitly stated in your original article"
--The original article was preliminary and I also gave multiple citations for the geomagnetic polarity time scale being used. If need be, readers could just check out those resources."So your response only makes sense if I assume that you did not know the answer and were not able to look it up. Even then you could have admitted that fact and looked it up between responses - which you did not do."
--I already knew the information as well as where to look it up(the reference I picked out of my personal library is in my reference list of the essay)"Your second statement is definitely false. The first mention of acceerated decay is in post 7 where you preemptively try to shut down discussion."
--No, it isn't false. I didn't try to shut down discussion. I just didn't want to directly discuss accelerated decay because it was not the topic for this thread."And insisting that you should not have to justify an assumption of accelerated decay is bad enough"
--I explained early in this thread why I didn't want to discuss radioisotopic decay. I think I also said that if you are going to even consider the implications of a young earth and global flood, your going to have to assume accelerated decay. Because if accelerated decay didn't happen, neither did a young earth or a global flood. I will let the nuclear physicists deal with the problem of radioisotopes and I will assume that it could happen because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how solid CPT theory is, if accelerated decay didn't happen, CPT didn't either."but when you are in effect using radioactive decay rate as a substitute for the spreading rate you in fact need to justify that, too."
--I didn't do anything like this until recently."We're back to your assumption that the spreading rate is closely proportional to the decay rate which you have shown a reluctance to admit to in another thread (here http://EvC Forum: S.America and Africa's rate of spreading -->EvC Forum: S.America and Africa's rate of spreading - the first two of your posts on the issue - 8 and 10 - refuse to admit to the problem)."
--I already admitted that I don't have a good answer, all I stated that I do have is a suggestion. We will discuss this in that thread when I post there again.

"Wait... I haven't really been following this thread, but - is the basic claim being presented that the plates have been moving apart at rates fast enough to split Pangaea to the present position in 4-6k years?"
--Close enough. You may start your engine.

Well lets see. Specific heat c of water is ~4200 J kg^-1 K ^-1 and for basalt c = ~800 J kg^-1 K ^-1 If we were to take variables:T₁ = 1300 K
V_o = 1,400,000,000,000 m³
V_l = 7,000,000,000 m³Where T₁ is initial temperature of basalt and V_o is volume of oceans and V_l is volume of oceanic crust with a thickness of 100 m. From this we can deduce that this amount of heat (1000 K) if transfered directly to the superposing oceans without any heat loss by other means could heat 7 x 10⁶ km³ of ocean water by 190 K, or the entire ocean by 1 K.If we cool the entire crust of 6 km we could heat 7 x 10⁶ km³ of ocean water by 38000 K, or the entire ocean by 60 K. If we go further to account for the whole lithosphere the equations will get more complicated because of the geothermal gradient.If this is right, and considering the proposed mechanism of lithospheric cooling (hydrothermal circulation) the problem isn't that extreme. I may not have done my math right, its been a while since I had done similar calculations.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-25-2003]

Welcome to the board Hydroplate Hippie!

quote:

---

I am an EE and understand a little about electromagnetic fields. I can tell you with confidence that the Magnetic poles have never "reversed" and especially with a nonperiodic frequency.

---

--I can tell you with confidence that it is the contrary. The geomagnetic polarity timescale has been researched extensively in the oceans and on land--they match. Furthermore, their nonperiodic frequency is indicative in the paleomagnetic data.

quote:

---

No experienced Instrumentation Engineer would interpret fluctuating signal strength above and below an average to be a "Reversal".

---

--As others have pointed out, it is the change in direction of the geomagnetic field that determines whether a reversal has taken place.Also, I suggest getting a copy of Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets by Schubert, et al. You will find that the significance of the viscosity parameter is well researched and hardly ignored.Furthermore, Brown's Hydroplate theory has trouble explaining copious geophysical aspects of the ocean floor--not just magnetic anomalies. To name a few:Heat flow/Hydrothermal circulation, deposits, and distribution.
Bathymetry and seafloor age correlations
Thickness of oceanic lithosphere and age correlations
Subduction zone seismologyThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-09-2005 19:37 AM

quote:

---

In all seriousness, you are providing an excellent forum and I appreciate it! Only by sharing knowledge and understanding through discussion will we sharpen our insights. These exchanges have increased my focus and raised more questions for me.

---

--That is always good to hear, HH -Chris

quote:

---

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.

---

--I believe Jazzns reference to evidences for plate motion is in the context of seafloor spreading. How does hydroplate geodynamics account for this if seafloor spreading, or atleast that plate divergence is not supposed to have occured to any significance? I addressed this in a post earlier in this thread--how does the hydoplate theory explain large scale geophysical features of the seafloor like hydrothermal distribution, lithospheric thickness, and bathymetry? The typical patterns in these geophysical seafloor characteristics are as functions of distance from plate divergent boundaries. Furthermore, these characteristics have been modeled convincingly within mainstream PT theory.--How are these observations explained under your paradigm of hydroplate geodynamics without seafloor spreading?--The original topic of this thread was largely in reference to the changing frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time seen in the GPTS data. This data is has not been invented, but has been uncovered through detailed geophysical analysis. While each successive reversal is relatively random, the pattern of the changing frequency is observed:I am interested in hearing your explanation of this data.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2005 23:44 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

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.

---

--I do recall looking at 3D topographic maps with geomagnetic anomalies. I don't recall there being any direct relation between bathymetry and geomagnetic intensity. However there is indirect relation in that the general process of seafloor spreading is accompanied by isolated events of extrusive volcanism which not only may imprint an altered geomagnetic signature on the seafloor but locally add to lithospheric thickness thereby effecting isostatic balance, hence bathymetric anomalies. I have a membership and subscribe to several AGU journals, maybe I can dig up something. At any rate, I really don't think you will find what you are supposing. Of course.. I don't really know exactly what you are implying if it is not that geomagnetic anomalies are related to variations in bathymetry, so if you could address this directly I would appreciate it.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

An example, Lord Kelvin used the known temperature-vs-depth data of his time with the known laws of thermodynamics to calcate an age of the earth that was, I believe, only a few hundreds of thousand of years, or maybe a few million years old -- far too young according to geology.

---

--I believe this estimate was something around 65 My, whereas the accepted age of the earth/solar system is derived from radioisotopic dating of (chondratic?) meteorites--4.5 Gy, a little under 2 orders of magnitude difference. Nevertheless, your point is valid, and I agree with your conclusions.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.