Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

quote:

---

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.htm

---

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? Could you please explain how this fits in with a biblical flood? 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?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.

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.

quote:

---

As for your paper, it is woefully incomplete. Besides presenting questionable interpretations (lack of supporting evidence), misrepresenting mainstream science (as Edge points out), and leaving us guessing the units for your spreading rate data (which looks like an inverted plot of the geomag data), you haven't nearly done enough work for this paper to warrant it being called a research paper. Or is it just an article? Even then you have a lot more work to do.

---

It is interesting how TC has mistakenly subtituted 'some unspecified distance' per reversal for cm/year in describing rates of continental drift. When there are no reversals, or no information (which is very possible in this case); the rate suddenly climbs to infinity. Obviously a very silly analysis based on some odd assumptions that NO one would find reasonable.

quote:

---

"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'??

---

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? 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.Or are you saying that these graphs are evidence for CPT? LOL!

quote:

---

"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, ...

---

Which would invalidate your method, thank you.

quote:

---

...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.

---

Well, we wouldn't want you to be constrained by actual data.

quote:

---

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).

---

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. This betrays your method. I suppose that would account for the moon, however...Really, TC, this is silly.

quote:

---

"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".

---

Relative to what?

quote:

---

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.

---

I might. I criticize geophysicists all the time. It's part of my job. Can you give me a quote to that effect? And can you verify what they mean by relatively constant compared to your variability?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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

I think you need to show that there IS frequency first.

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...

quote:

---

--There you go with creationist presuppositions again. Can you really recall any time ever on this board where I gave variable c-velocity credibility?

---

Well they are usually part of the same package. I can never keep track of what YECs think...

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. 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. And I didn't say it had to be here...

quote:

---

"Or are you saying that these graphs are evidence for CPT? LOL!"

​

--Actually, in some manner, yes.

---

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 and the data are readily explained by conventional PT, anyway. Why waste time on a fantastic story?

quote:

---

...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?

---

I get this from your graph. It makes no sense. If you have a long period of no reversals, what do you get? High rates of divergence! But why can it not be simply a period of no reversals and the same rate of divergence? Your parameters are not dependent.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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.

quote:

---

"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?

---

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?

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.

---

---

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?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?

quote:

---

--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.

---

A framework carefully chosen to ignore the actual geological record. As I have said to another poster here, your model is like a crossword puzzle where there are no crossing words. Very little challenge and not much verifiability...

quote:

---

P:"Where is the evidence for any of this?"

​

--Well, what do you think of the geomagnetic data?

---

Readily explainable by conventional plate tectonics. Why resort to fantastic tales?

quote:

---

--Percy, I am just very surprised that you cannot see any significance in the history of geomagnetic reversals.

---

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?

TC: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?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.Do you still put any credence in his model considering that he has not entertained the possiblility of accelerated decay? Would seem to me that this lack of attention would completely invalidate his model.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.

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!

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

"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.

---

But even Glatzmaier says the reversals are random... Is he wrong about that also? For a guy who makes so many mistakes you seem to extoll his work a lot.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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?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.[/quote]Then there is no description of the frequency of reversals. How can you say the reversal are periodic? This is getting silly.

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."

​

--Thats 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. And yet you maintain that they can be used to measure the rates of divergence!

quote:

---

"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.

---

Then you need to clarify your posts. The first case is obviously not true and, in the latter case, your method does not work because the reversals are mostly random.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Perhaps this is a clue in itself.Let's see, could it be that there never was such a flood or such a thing as CPT? Nah!

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure, do all the work an then address the fatal flaw.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure. Let's just ignore that nasty little point!By the way, it was not just Noah's boat. The question regarded all life on earth...

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.

---

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 (other than that you really are out of your depth here).

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.

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."I get this from your graph. It makes no sense."

quote:

---

--Just because the curve may not fit on the graph does not imply infinity. Maybe I should make this clear in the article?

---

Maybe you need to come up with some actual numbers.

quote:

---

"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!

---

Then tell us what the rates are. Don't just give us an asymptotic line heading off into space.

quote:

---

"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!

---

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.

quote:

---

"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???

---

The domains are there, but they are readily explained by normal plate tectonic theory. At any rate, there should be some corroborating evidence for your hypothesis... But there isn't.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Okay, so what is the frequency? Why is it different at different times in the past? Why does Glatzmaier say that the periods are effectively random?

quote:

---

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:

---

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...

quote:

---

--I think there is frequency.

---

Once again, what is it?

quote:

---

"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, ...

---

Uh oh... I think I see where you problem is. A 'period' is not a 'change in frequency'.

quote:

---

...is not an assumption, but is very well substantiated.

---

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.

quote:

---

"Readily explainable by conventional plate tectonics. Why resort to fantastic tales?"

​

--Because it doesn't seem so fantastic.

---

Really! Galloping plates that leave behind no trace of their passing? Yeah, we see that alllll the time!

quote:

---

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.

---

I really don't have a mechanism for periodicity of reversals because I am not saying they are periodic! 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. He also says that reversals are effectively random.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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. You could show periodicity of the data. You can't. Even your main source of support really disagrees with you.This is getting tedious, TC. Please show us some evidence to support CPT. You have provided no geological evidence as yet and we grow impatient. All you have shown us is some data that are readily explained by conventional PT.

TC, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your last post. Should you follow a scientific career, I predict a very rocky road for you.Now you are saying that the periodicity of magnetic reversals is 160 million years! Never mind that you don't believe in an earth that old, this is pure nonsense. You have altered the rate of reversals to a rate of change of reversals and called it the same thing! How can the frequency of reversals be 160my when we know that they were much more common in the Tertiary, for instance? The problem is that you are looking at the rate of change of the frequency of reversals!Furthermore, you have cleared up your graph by simply drawing a line to connect the asymptotic parts of the curve with at flat line. Now, what is the value of that flat line and where does it come from? What is the calculation used to produce those values?You seem to be confused. You are the on saying that reversals can be used to measure the rate of plate divergence, and yet you expect me to explain why this is so. You have done things like this before also. GET THIS: If YOU make a claim, YOU have to support it. I have no explanation for the periodicity of magnetic reversals. As far as I can see, they are random. Glatzmaier agrees with me when he says that they occur at intervals of tens of thousands to tens of millions of years. He cannot explain why this is either.Now, you still have not convinced anyone here that the reversals can be used to measure the rate of plate divergence. When they occur at ten thousand to ten million year intervals, the problem becomes quite complex for you. It is like trying to time a race with a clock that has 'seconds' that are anywhere from ten seconds to a thousand seconds long! Your clock does not keep time! In fact, you are exhibiting an EXTREME version of uniformitarianism in insisting that there is some predictability to the reversals in the geological record. Very silly.Now, some simple questions:What was the rate of plate divergence during CPT?Where/how is this number calculated? Show us the numbers.What is an independent line of evidence to support CPT?

quote:

---

--Bruce Buffett, from nature 1999:

​

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?

---

Oh, I understand Buffet perfectly. It is you who makes no sense whatever. I seriously doubt that Buffet would try to measure plate divergence rates by simply measuring the number of reversals.

quote:

---

"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'.

---

I rest my case. TC, you are out of your depth again!

quote:

---

"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.

---

Well, I didn't think I had to explain this. You need to have a periodic effect in order to be able to measure a rate.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Actually, I do have an idea.

quote:

---

[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?

---

I cannot have an explanation for something that does not exist. All I can tell you is that it changes.

quote:

---

[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"?

---

I have no idea. But I suppose you do?

quote:

---

[3] - Yup, so you have a problem, the data do not reflect random occurrences of geomagnetic reversals unless you increase/decrease the spreading rate!

---

Nope. THis is silly. I could simply change the frequency of reversals.

quote:

---

--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).

---

Then just what the F are we debating here? You agree that the rate of reversals is random and yet you can use them to calculate a rate of divergence? TC, you make no sense whatsoever.

quote:

---

But this isn't what we see! They are RANDOM.

---

Yes! Yes! That is the point. How do you use a watch with randomly variable length seconds to provide a time parameter to a rate?

quote:

---

"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..

---

Then tell us what it is! What is the regular frequency of magnetic reversals?

quote:

---

"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.

---

Exactly. The frequency is so variable that there is none that you can use to calculate a rate of seafloor spreading.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Correct, it hasn't because there is no need to. You are the one who needs to explain it because you are using the numbers to calculate a rate of plate divergence. You have not done so. Don't you see the intrinsic silliness of all this?