Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

This topic originated from some discussion I tried to initiate in the "Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift" thread. The load was already high in there so I will make a thread just for the topic of geomagnetism.I have done my analysis and a preliminary copy of an article I will be illustrating it in can be found here:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...is%20Grose/geomag.htmBut if those wishing to participate in this thread do not want to take the 5 minutes to read it I will quote the main points:

quote:

---

In this paper is my analysis of geomagnetic data and the duration of polarity chrons for the past "180 Ma" and a comparison with bathymetric data. When plotting the distribution of geomagnetic polarity chrons we find that there is a very interesting acceleration and deceleration in the quantities of geomagnetic reversals in successive spans of time as we move from the oldest sea-floor to their corresponding spreading centers. 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.

​

What we also find is that anomalies in bathymetric data correlates very well with the geomagnetic data. The correlation described in this paper appears to be incompatible with uniformitarian plate tectonics because it would imply ridiculous rates of sea-floor spreading and violate the assumption that it is relatively constant.

---

The above figure illustrates the quantity of geomagnetic reversals seen in each successive "3 Ma" span of sea-floor. The red line indicates the inferred rate of sea-floor spreading.

quote:

---

Mainstream scientists have interpreted the extent of polarity chrons not as the rate of sea-floor spreading, but as the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. They assume the rate of sea-floor spreading has always been relatively constant. Indeed as will be shown, if they were to consider that the width of polarity chrons as indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading they would quickly discover that the implied divergence velocities are incompatible with uniformitarian plate tectonics.

---

quote:

---

Simply looking at the plot[Above figure] gives good reason to question that if it is representative of the frequency of geomagnetic reversals (in contrast to the rate of sea-floor spreading) that it is difficult to see them as random occurrences. Though if we consider the data not as the frequency of geomagnetic reversals, but the rate of sea-floor spreading we can still make use of geodynamo models that agree with geomagnetic reversals being random. "With a random reversal process there would be no continuity between successive reversals; as soon as a reversal was completed, the next one would be as likely to occur immediately as at any time later."(Lowrie 1997). Indeed, lowrie goes on to assert:

quote:

---

In fact this model does not fit the observed lengths of polarity intervals very well... It seems more likely that the process that causes reversals is not completely random.[ref 3 in the article]

---

However, if we assume uniformitarian plate tectonics and were to also consider the occurrence of geomagnetic reversals as non-random, why would it follow such a correlation as is seen in Figure 1[see above figure]? This would, in a uniformitarian perspective, indicate that there was an average decrease in the frequency of reversals as Pangea split until right about mid-duration, thereafter only to increase gradually all the way up until recent times. This seems more difficult to imagine than to interpret this as an indication that plate divergence since the breakup of Pangea began with an acceleration in sea-floor spreading, followed by a deceleration to current values.

---

The other feature explained in the article is that from contrasting analysis of the bathymetric data with the geomagnetic data:

quote:

---

Figure 4.1 has taken bathymetric data originally produced in Turcotte and Schubert (2002) and has marked anomalous deflections from the PM 95 line[see ref 7 in the article] with ovals and the time-span in which the anomalies occur have been marked with bars. These bars have been placed in respective proportion in Figure 4.2. The white arrows indicate whether the deflection from the estimated bathymetry in Figure 4.1 is positive or negative. Since faster spreading rates imply elevated bathymetry, geomagnetic data would have to correlate inversely. For this reason the inverted black arrows in Figure 4.2 have been added.

---

quote:

---

Rapid spreading rates would have to imply that--since the oceanic lithosphere is carried longer distances from the mid-ocean ridge in a given span of time--the spreading sea-floor had to already have traveled quite a distance before the curie temperature would be reached. If we are to take into consideration the runaway subduction mechanism for CPT we would have to account for this and shift the bathymetric data to the right, relative to the geomagnetic data in order for timing to overlap. Looking at Figure 4.2 this is very appealing because shifting the bathymetric data to the right by about ~5 Ma creates a near perfect match. Decreases in the quantity of geomagnetic reversals in a given span of time complement elevated bathymetry.

---

--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."--Here is a geomagnetic polarity timescale since ~160 Ma (after Lowrie, 1997, based on Harland et al., 1990).http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...ose/Images/lowrie.gif------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2003]

--Sorry about my absence, I've been trying to keep up on my research, and not only on the topic in this thread and others."Umm, TC, I hate to point out the obvious, but have you noticed that your period of accelerated plate tectonics is about 40 million years long?"
--I think you already know the answer to that one... I've been here almost 2 years, have you been following any of my 2000+ posts? Or are you just waiting for me to mention accelerated decay so you can diverge the topic for this thread over to that 'presupposition'??"Have you calculated the actual rates of spreading rather than some relative rate that is apparently something divided by the rate of reversal which is zero for the time interval in question? Why not put actual numbers on the graph for the rate of spreading?"
--Because, (1)the extent of normal and reversed polarity chrons themselves are probably still, for the most part random, and (2) since the frequency of geomagnetic reversals has been shown(theoretically) to be effected by the mean heat flow and distribution of diverse heat flow values at the CMB(core-mantle boundary). These were my initial reasons for not being able to register numerical values for the sea-floor spreading rate. Settling for relative rates inferred from the geomagnetic data is the best I could do and is sufficient for my conclusions(ie, that the implied rate of sea-floor spreading at various times, especially during about the mid-history since the Pangean breakup)."You are wrong, by the way in saying that geologists think the rate of spreading has been constant since the Triassic Period. There has long been recognized a higher rate of spreading in the Cretaceous which correlates with several other geological events. However, no one comes up with anything like the rates that you and Baumgardner seem to find reasonable."
--I am more than well aware of this. Anyone who has studied eustasy in the past and the geophysical factors in its variance should--even on a basic level. I said "relatively constant", not "constant, period". I'm sure you wouldn't hammer other geophysics authors (eg. Turcotte, Schubert, Lowrie, et al.) for saying the same thing... reading in context is important. Just because I am writing a paper in the YECist perspective, doesn't mean that I don't understand these things.

"The prevailing theory is that the rates were much higher in early Earth history, i.e. 3 billion years ago."
--Sure was, indeed the earths mean surface heat flux was twice that today(on uniformitarian time-scales). Surely we all know the function of the earths surface heat flux on the topography and bathymetry of the oceanic lithosphere!"Do you remember my post in the other topic about what we would expect to see if CPT had happened? Stuff like very extensive volcanic sequences, and incredibly high strain rates? The discovery of things like this could prove CPT - so why isn't anyone looking for them?"
--I'm not looking to 'prove CPT', but to model the history of the earth and examine the possibility of a young earth.

"In case you didn't notice, your entire premise is based on some kind of periodicity. I should add that I have never heard anyone suggest that magnetic reversals are periodic. Since we don't really know the mechanism of reversal it would be foolish to make such an assumption as you seem to have done."
--So much for modeling the geodynamo! You should read up on some of Glatzmaier's recent works.

"Your proposal is not worthy of any attention because it is in conflict with almost all relevant evidence. You're still just building theories that ignore rather than explain evidence."
--Then explain the frequency of geomagnetic reversals please. There is nothing I am ignoring here, unless you have something for me.--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.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-13-2003]

"TC, the bolded portion of that statement is enough for any mainstream scientist to stop taking you seriously."
--Agreed, I did not mean to express the assertion the way I did. Of course my paper was a preliminary copy and still has problems which I know of more detrimental than any of you in this thread or any other have mentioned. Of course I will have to do plenty of revision."If misrepresenting the truth is what you have to do in order to get published, then you should sacrifice that option and not publish."
--Or maybe, I could just revise my paper?"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?"
--Yes to both, the magnetization of rock is not a local phenomena. And the process of sea-floor spreading occurrs in the same way and by the same mechanisms throughout all active ocean ridges on earth--I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise.--Now, about the frequency of geomagnetic reversals on the 10^8 scale as seen in the figures--how do you explain this? And give a direct reason why interpreting the data as indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading is not possible or plausible.

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].

---

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]

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.

Edge:"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? "
--No, he isn't 'wrong' and his work is groundbreaking. Its just that if CPT has occurred, those values will be much different, especially the peak heat-flux variation."But even Glatzmaier says the reversals are random..."
--No, he doesn't. In fact, his 1999 nature article is dedicated to verifying the inverse(that they aren't entirely random). Why would he entitle his paper, "The role of the Earth's mantle in controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals". And in his abstract, he states:

quote:

---

A series of computer simulations of the Earth's dynamo illustrates how the thermal structure of the lowermost mantle might affect convection and magnetic-field generation in the fluid core...The results suggest correlations among the frequency of reversals, the duration over which the reversals occur, the magnetic-field intensity and the secular variation.

---

quote:

---

--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?"
--Its both. I said "the total heat flow out of the core..." The total heat flow out of the core is constant in the simulations though with the 7 (out of 8) simulations the heat flows were heterogenous over the CMB. They can be both of course.

quote:

---

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.

---

"Then there is no description of the frequency of reversals. How can you say the reversal are periodic? This is getting silly."
--Ugh. Edge, in context, in context. You forgot to bold 'over time seen in the data'. What I am saying is that while his simulations suggest that variations in the heterogeneity of heat-flow over the CMB will effect the geomagnetic field (including the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time--even though this is the most ambiguous due to short simulation runs) this still doesn't explain its behavior over the 10⁸ time scales(ie. the pattern seen in the graphs for the past ~170 Ma of geomagnetic history).

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."
--That's 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.1 And yet you maintain that they can be used to measure the rates of divergence!2"
[1] - You have not substantiated this.
[2] - So.. is that what you call a refutation? You need to show that the interpretation of the rate of sea-floor spreading is not viable."Then you need to clarify your posts. The first case is obviously not true¹ and, in the latter case, your method does not work because the reversals are mostly random."
--[1] - Well if the frequency in geomagnetic reversals is not due to convection in the mantle, then how do you explain it? Now your completely lost.
--[2] - This is the reason my method works! If reversals are random, they would produce a rather uniformly straight line on the plots. This is what the geomagnetic data would be expected to look like if they were random and sea-floor spreading were essentially constant:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/renderplot5.swf--[3] - You can let it sit there for quite a while.. you wont get the frequency which we observe(curve in the background) in the geomagnetic record. It must either be concluded that geomagnetic reversals are not random and correlate with something on a 10⁸ time scale, or sea-floor spreading has not been essentially constant."Perhaps this is a clue in itself."--Yup, either the model isn't right, or it didn't happen."Let's see, could it be that there never was such a flood or such a thing as CPT? Nah!"--Just maybe. Too bad your 'clue' is mere inconclusive speculation."Sure, do all the work an then address the fatal flaw."--More like, do all the work to address the fatal flaw, if anything."Sure. Let's just ignore that nasty little point!"--No need to ignore it, the options have already been layed out, either the model isn't right, or it didn't happen. I choose to explore the former before I can conclude the latter."By the way, it was not just Noah's boat. The question regarded all life on earth..."--As I said before, thats the plan. This was fun, but I think the topic was 'Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading'."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"--Well then who were you talking to when you said, "With what you've given us you expect a conclusive verdict? Nonsense..." Why would you ask me this question if you already knew that I didn't expect a conclusive verdict?"(other than that you really are out of your depth here)."--Then why am I the one giving the information and forming the hypothesis. I have yet to hear any explanation for the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. If there is an answer, just spill it!

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."--Explain how my account does not explain radiometric dates. I sure hope this has something to do with the geomagnetic data..

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."--YOU STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED THE FREQUENCY OF GEOMAGNETIC REVERSALS! try again..."Maybe you need to come up with some actual numbers."--You CANT for the reasons I have listed, unless you can address those reasons, this assertion is absolutely worthless."Then tell us what the rates are. Don't just give us an asymptotic line heading off into space."--Again, I can't give you numbers. This isn't an asymptotic line. I will rerender the graph to include this."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."--Well since the data IS NOT RANDOM! I can and I have interpreted it as being influenced greatly by plate divergence. My interpretation stands and so far there isn't the slightest breeze to knock it down. Again, you still have a problem with the data, you have not explained it."The domains are there, but they are readily explained by normal plate tectonic theory."--um... nope, sure isn't explained as of yet. Unless you have one, but I know you probably don't."At any rate, there should be some corroborating evidence for your hypothesis... But there isn't."--Sure there is, and its very obvious. It hit you in the face repeatedly but you still can't feel it. look at the graph, and explain it--you can't do this, I have."Okay, so what is the frequency?"--omg, look at the graph, can you not see it gradually slope down and then up with the factor of time since ~160Ma????"Why is it different at different times in the past?"--Because the rate of sea-floor spreading was accelerated since the breakup of pangea and decelerated to current values since about ~100 Ma on the graph. Thats my explanation, whats yours? Oh I forgot, you don't have one."Why does Glatzmaier say that the periods are effectively random?"--Stop saying 'period' were not talking about periods, and Glatzmaier did not say that the frequency of geomagnetic reversals is entirely random."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..."--Yeah, I guess whoever did that isn't a scientist and uses data selectively... well I tell you what, you give William Lowrie a call and you ask him..."Once again, what is it?"--Bruce Buffett, from nature 1999:

quote:

---

Gradual changes in the average reversal frequency are well documented. the record of reversal over the past 160 million years (Myr) reveals a steady decrease in reversal frequency prior to a prolonged stable interval, known as the Cretaceous Superchron(fig. 1[see article, or my graphs]). Subsequent increases in reversal frequency have continued until the present day.

---

--Understand?"Uh oh... I think I see where you problem is. A 'period' is not a 'change in frequency'."--Then stop saying period, that isn't my problem, you are the one who keeps saying 'period'."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."--Thats what it seemed you have been arguing since I started this thread. As for not being able to be used as a parameter for measureing the rate of plate divergence. You need to explain this because you have not yet."I really don't have a mechanism for periodicity of reversals because I am not saying they are periodic!¹ 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.² He also says that reversals are effectively random."--You have absolutely no idea, you need to read his paper before you start making these kinds of assertions.[1] - I didn't say anything about a periodicity, but I did mention the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. You have not explained it! Do you have an explanation, or not?[2] - True it wasn't really an objective of his study, and neither did it fall out of his model. It has, however, been inferred from his paper that the frequency of geomagnetic reversals for the past "160 Ma" can be explained through his work (eg. Bruce Buffett, 1999 nature). So, is this wrong and do you concied to there not being a valid explanation for the frequency of geomagnetic reversals over the past "160 Ma"?[3] - Yup, so you have a problem, the data do not reflect random occurrences of geomagnetic reversals unless you increase/decrease the spreading rate!"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."--No... you can't! The only way you could calculate rates is if geomagnetic reversals were successive by a known period of time(ie, if x amount of time passed between every reversal). But this isn't what we see! They are RANDOM. See post 7 for the other reason you cannot do such a calculation."You could show periodicity of the data."--I still don't know what you are talking about with 'periodicy in the data'. If you are using frequency and periodicy interchangebly, again I have to say that the frequency of geomegnetic reversals is well substantiated and is shown in the data. I can't tell you how many times I've posted such data.."Even your main source of support really disagrees with you."--lol, not really, I don't know about the author, but I know that his publication has really helped support my idea. Reason being is that it has shown me that the observed frequency of geomagnetic reversals in the data is not easily explained by having something to do with theopening and closing of ocean basins or by rearrangements of temperature anomalies in the mantle over 10^8 time scales."All you have shown us is some data that are readily explained by conventional PT."--No, the data I have shown you has not been explained by conventional PT in any way, shape, or form in this thread, or in any of the papers/books I have read on the subject.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-16-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-16-2003]

"Oh, I see now. Clearly it's everyone else's fault."
--Nope, you just read out of context."This is untrue, TC. I have been very consistent in asking you to provide evidence supporting your ideas "
--No, It still seems true because you are trying to tell me that until I can show that other things are true, you will not consider the frequency of geomagnetic reversals as evidence. It is not 'ideas' we are discussing here, it is an idea. The idea is that the record of geomagnetism is easier interpreted by being influenced by the rate of sea-floor spreading than anything else."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?"
--None of those are accelerations of physical laws...they are accelerations of processes known to occur today..."It is one of the things for which I keep asking for evidence, and for which you have still offered none."
--The frequency of geomagnetic reversals in the current sea-floor is evidence for the rapidity of sea-floor spreading. That you cannot see this astounds me."And why do you put quotes around something I never said? More confusion, TC?"
--Not verbatim but you did say: "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." Close enough, no confusion."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.
--No support for a violation of physical laws sure(of course...) though for an increased sea-floor spreading rate, yes it does. Wanna know why? Because it is expected if sea-floor accelerated followed by a deceleration. William Lowrie (Fundamentals of Geophysics) knows that it would except that it is inconceivable in light of uniformitarianism and the geophysical requirements that would be needed for such a style of sea-floor spreading. You have to refute my interpretation by saying more than, 'well it doesn't support anything' (not a quote)."What an imagination you have, TC! I've never attempted any refutation of your interpretation."
--I'm glad you've come to the admittence that you do not have any intention of discussing the topic for this thread.

Percy, I have explained the frequency of geomagnetic reversals seen in this graph, hows about you? Can you give me something, edge hasen't yet, and neither have you:Hows about anyone else in this forum who knows his way around the topic of geomagnetism and its record.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-16-2003]

quote:

---

...but I did mention the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. You have not explained it! Do you have an explanation, or not?"

---

"I cannot have an explanation for something that does not exist. All I can tell you is that it changes."
--WHAT??? Something that does not exist??? So did you read Buffett or not??

"Rapid sea-floor spreading is in the title of this thread, rapid sea-floor spreading is exactly what you're claiming your graph indicates, and rapid sea-floor spreading is a central part of CPT. This thread is so much about CPT that almost all your messages bring it up. You even conceded as much when you said, "Yup! So in other words, I want to discuss that data, and whether it does or doesn't support CPT." I did not quote you out of context on this, or about your denying and then conceding that your views come from Genesis. I wish you wouldn't blame me for calling attention to your errors and self-contradictions."
--Percy, what's it going to take from me to show you that this thread was meant to be about geomagnetism and the rate of sea-floor spreading. This thread is not about general CPT. That we are discussing an aspect of that theory does not mean we are discussing the theory in general. As I said in the quote you quoted from me, I want to "discuss that data[the geomagnetic data!], and whether it does or doesn't support CPT." The quote does not support any interpretation having to do with general CPT discussion."You have no rate of sea-floor spreading data. You simply took the reciprocal of the rate of magnetic reversals and, without any justification whatsoever, called that the rate of sea-floor spreading."
--Without any justification? My justification is that this would be what is expected from the geomagnetic data if sea-floor spreading was not constant(having initial acceleration until ~85 - 110 Ma, followed by deceleration to current values) and geomagnetic reversals were random."You're quibbling, you know we're talking about the same thing. If you want to claim that accelerated processes do not require changes to physical laws then please realize that this is counter to the views of many other Creationists. For example, for most Creationists accelerated decay requires a change to physical laws, and in fact they have pointed to evidence that Planck's constant may have been different in the early universe as indicating that this is possible. Regardless, you know very well it is a Creationist position, not mine. And whether you want to talk about accelerated processes or changes to physical laws, you still have no evidence for either one."
--I am not quibbling, there is a big difference between an acceleration in a process and a voilation of physical laws. That you only give the example of accelerated decay in this paragraph is misleading because that is the only phenomena which I ever conceided probably must have been a voilation of physical laws (supernatural intervention). All the rest of the package, sea-floor spreading rate, increased rate of geomagnetic reversals, turbidite sedimentation, cooling, etc. all comes with the package and are not voilations of physical laws but merely are effects of it."You said it was my speculation, when of course that is wrong since it is actually a common Creationist position. You not only put quotes around something I never said, you quote me holding a point of view I do not hold."
--I never said you held the view, there we go with the in context thing. It is your speculation that if CPT ever occured physical constants would have had to have been different in the past." don't understand why you are raising all these irrational points. You say your views don't come from Genesis when they obviously do."
--I think it is misleading to say that they are 'my views'. The idea of a global flood occuring in the past does come from Genesis. Do you mind if I explore the veracity of such an occurrence? Is not this entire forum dedicated to something along that line? So is this forum dedicated to productive discussion regarding the history of the earth, life, and the cosmos, or is it a place where fundy-bashing can be enjoyed?"You say the thread isn't about CPT when it obviously is."
--I think that not only has it been well established, but is rather obvious that this thread is not meant to be a place for general discussion of CPT, hence the title and opening statements."You accuse me of advocating a Creationist position."
--You've accused me of me making such accusations before, but they are never in context. It would be downright retarded for me to think that you advocate any discriminating aspect of CPT or a young earth. I am well aware of your position."You falsely accused me of quoting you out of context."
--I accused you of reading me out of context."My intention was to call attention to the fact that you have put the cart before the horse by formulating theory before you have any evidence. You are supposed to support your assertions with evidence. You assert that the rate of magnetic reversals correlates with the rate of sea-floor spreading."
--Not necessarily, all I said was that the geomagnetic data can be interpreted as being indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading. You seem to think that my rate of sea-floor spreading data was independent from this?"Where is your sea-floor spreading rate data?"
--I don't have 'sea-floor spreading rate data', never said I did, nor do I need any to make the conclusions I have made."Do you think it would be possible to focus more of your attention on this missing data, and on the missing evidence for accelerated processes?"
--If I saw a need for such 'missing data', I certainly would, but I don't see it. I think that you are misunderstanding how I am getting this relative rate of sea-floor spreading.