Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

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.--Percy

Hi, TC!You seem to be employing an evidence-avoidance strategy. For example: 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. You have adopted your position because of Genesis, not because of evidence. Produce the evidence and then you'll be deserving of attention.It is difficult to understand why you think you've done anything of any significance. By ignoring a goodly number of known physical laws you can advance any argument you like, even perpetual motion machines. So what?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. Where is the evidence for any of this? It's disappointing to see you increasingly engage in debate maneuvers rather than straightforward discussion. 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.--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."

Moving on, here you again refuse to introduce evidence: You avoid discussing evidence at every opportunity. 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. And just a little later you say: 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?Moving on: 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.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. 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.Find the evidence, TC. Until you do you're just building castles in the clouds.--Percy

Hi, TC!You *do* realize, I hope, that we in essence have just had this conversation: And also this conversation: 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.You go on to say: We already know the data does not support CPT. That's why CPT has to additionally propose dramatic violations of established physical principles. Only by ignoring physics can you make the data fit your theory.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. Until then they are not worthy of consideration.--Percy

Oh, I see now. Clearly it's everyone else's fault. This is untrue, TC. I have been very consistent in asking you to provide evidence supporting your ideas (so far you have done everything but), and in refusing to discuss them until you do. 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? It is one of the things for which I keep asking for evidence, and for which you have still offered none. And why do you put quotes around something I never said? More confusion, TC? 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. What an imagination you have, TC! I've never attempted any refutation of your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that your views require physical laws to have dramatically changed at one point in the past, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You are in effect saying, "Let's debate the validity of my ideas while ignoring that they violate physical laws." I'm not going to do that, TC, until you provide evidence that the physical laws were ever different.--Percy

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. 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 data for sea-floor spreading rates you have nothing. This missing data is part of the evidence I keep reminding you that you have not yet provided. 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. You're leaving out the context, TC. Don't you remember what you said? Here it is again: 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 don't understand why you are raising all these irrational points. You say your views don't come from Genesis when they obviously do. You say the thread isn't about CPT when it obviously is. You accuse me of advocating a Creationist position. You put quotes around something I didn't say. You falsely accused me of quoting you out of context. Your faux pas have risen way above the noise level, and I wish you would stop. 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. Where is your sea-floor spreading rate data? 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?--Percy

Hi Paul,The most relevant graph is the 2nd one in Message 31 (the first one is an empty white square for me). Here it is again:This graph shows the rate of sea-floor spreading as inversely proportional to the rate of magnetic reversals. In other words, it shows sea-floor spreading slowing down as magnetic reversals speed up, and vice versa. He has no data for the sea-floor spreading rate to correlate with his graph, and the right axis is unscaled anyway.Why TC is so hot on this graph is difficult to understand, because it shows the exact opposite of what TC actually believes. TC believes that the rates are positively, not inversely, correlated. TC needs a graph that instead shows their rates increasing and decreasing in concert. This is the only way his scenario can produce the observed magnetic striping data on the sea-floor. In other words, not only is his graph unsupported by any actual data, it contradicts his position anyway.--Percy

You are attempting to compartmentalize consideration of your proposals into narrow areas in order to make the conflicts and contradictions between them less apparent. Perhaps to you, but from here it is apparent that you're simply trying to avoid the more ridiculous implications. And in any event, you have no evidence supporting either one. As you well know, this is a Creationist idea that I was merely repeating for your benefit. That physical laws could ever have been different would never have occurred to me. I wonder if it wouldn't be too much to ask if you would stop repeating this since, as I have pointed out several times now, it is incorrect. I said your ideas come from Genesis, not from evidence. You denied it in one post, then when challenged conceded it in the next. I was merely calling attention to your flip-flop.Moving on, I don't think you have sufficiently justified this change in your graph. You need to describe how you derived the red line for the rate of sea-floor spreading. Here's the graph as you presented it in Message 1:And here is the graph as you presented it in Message 31:In your descriptions you claim to be correlating the rate of sea-floor spreading with chron duration, but your graph doesn't show chron duration. It instead shows the rate of magnetic reversals. It is of course true that, to state this approximately, average chron width is an inverse function of the average rate of magnetic reversals, so this isn't a serious deficiency.One piece of relevant information that is missing is the actual width of magnetic stripes on the sea floor. Assuming that sea-floor spreading rates were not dramatically different in the past, the width of magnetic stripes should increase with increasing chron duration. A table of the widths of magnetic stripes on the sea floor versus time would be interesting data to have if you've come across it.It is true that wider magnetic stripes could be equally well explained both by longer magnetic reversal periods and by increased sea-floor spreading rates, but the latter only if you ignore the radiometric data. And it was Edge's introduction of the radiometric argument that initiated your attempts to exclude it from the discussion by claiming it was really only part of "CPT in general", which is where this message began.--Percy [Clarified final paragraph. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percipient, 08-19-2003]

I haven't checked his numbers regarding when magnetic reversals occurred, but they aren't inconsistent with what I already know, such as that there were no magnetic reversals for a long time around a hundred million years ago, so until some problem pops up putting them in question I'm inclined to accept them at this point in time.But TC has no data for the red line, the sea-floor spreading rate, and so it is very unlikely to correspond to reality. He simply created the line to clarify his argument that it might not have been the rate of magnetic reversals that changed but instead the sea-floor spreading rate. This is, of course, contradicted by the radiometric data.So, anyway, when you go on to say this: You have to realize that TC's red line is simply the inverse of the magnetic reversal rate (except where the rate goes to 0, so TC has fudged the line). Since it doesn't correspond to real data, there was no "counting out" from the mid-ocean ridge.--Percy

For the benefit of those of us just not up to the rigours of translating TC-ese at this time on a Friday night, could someone tell me if TC is conceding, dodging or reemphasizing? I just can't tell.--Percy

Most engineers, including me, have no problem with plate tectonics. What are the physical and thermodynamic grounds by which you reject plate tectonics? I can't tell what your objection is. Are you claiming there are no mantle currents, or merely that there are problems with the current models.Modelling convection currents within the mantle is as difficult as modelling the weather, and so the mantle current models struggle to reproduce observations, but current models definitely do *not* ignore viscosity. We can't directily measure the viscosity to plug into models, but it can be derived indirectly. This is from Earth Story, the Shaping of Our World by Lamb and Sington, p 105-106: In other words, you're wrong that current models ignore viscosity. Perhaps you were thinking of the problems of modelling plate tectonics in terms of mantle currents, also discussed in Earth Story: Congratulations on your double-E status, but since electromagnetic fields result from the earth's internal dynamo which is in turn a function of mantle currents which are inconstant, varying electromagnetic field strength and direction over time would appear inevitable, and the current state of the strength and direction is captured in rocks when they first cool, as happens at mid-oceanic ridges. The fluctuating field strength was measured by sensitive magnetometers pulled behind boats. After analyzing rocks from cores from the sea floor, the fluctuations were found to be due to opposite magnetizations. Higher field strengths were measured in regions where the rocks were magnetized in the same direction as the earth's magnetic field, while lower field strengths were measured in regions where the rocks were magnetized in a direction opposite to the earth's magnetic field.In other words, the reversals are not an interpretation, they're a measurement of the actual magnetic direction in the rocks. The earth's magnetic field is only a net magnetic field. It is made up of the contributions of the many individual mantle currents. Some of the currents contribute a magnetic field in the same direction as the net field, and some contribute an opposite field. The net magnetic field is the one we detect with a compass.As various mantle currents ebb and flow, their contribution to the earth's net magnetic field changes. These fluctuations are random, and over time the net contribution of all mantle currents can change to create magnetic fields in both the positive and negative directions. It is these reversals that are captured in the rocky base of the sea floor and is known as sea-floor striping.In other words, geophysicists do not believe the magnetic field reversals are due to huge flips of inertial mass in the mantle.--Percy

"Geodynamo" is not a synonym for mantle currents. Since I wasn't party to the full dialogue I can only guess, but I think your correspondent may have been describing a model of the production of the earth's magnetic field where viscosity is not a significant factor. Such a model would accept as input the results from a mantle current model, which most certainly takes viscosity into account.I already gave you an excerpt from Earth Story that made clear that viscosity is included in the models, and if you do this Google search and you'll see links to lots of pages that mention viscosity in mantle current models. Since the mantle current models definitely *do* include viscosity, it's time for you to make like Emily Litella and say, "Never mind!" Say what? Convection currents result from the earth's internal heat engine, not from viscosity. That mantle convection currents are real is supported by much seismic data, much of it from earthquakes. Oh, God, another hit and run, and a hydroplate hippie to boot! Just throws out some nonsense and moves on. No point in continuing if he's not going to be here...--Percy

Omigod, you're right, of course. I got all caught up in rebutting Rod's claim that "Scientists ignore viscosity when modelling mantle currents proving magnetic reversals don't happen" argument and forgot this. But you're not suggesting that outer core convection models ignore viscosity, are you?Added by edit: a quick Google leads me to believe viscosity is included in outer core convection models, but perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 01-08-2005 10:41 AM

The presence of convection currents both in the mantle and the earth's outer core is supported by the data. As gengar noted, the currently accepted scientific view is that the earth's magetic field is thought to originate from convection in the earth's outer core, not the mantle as you earlier argued. The outer core is thought to be composed primarily of iron and nickle. One idea for the origin of the currents driving the magnetic field is weak intergalactic and solar magnetic fields interacting with the rotating earth and the convecting outer core. Moving a conductive path, such as would occur in within the earth's outer core, through a magnetic field causes electric current to flow. And that electric current in turn gives rise to a magnetic field.I think the amplification of the magnetic field into its current strength is not a question we have good answers for at this time. No claims for perpetual motion are being made. If the earth's magnetic field derives from the earth's rotation and from convection within the earth's outer core, as is believed, then the energy comes from the earth's internal heat engine, thought to be powered by radioactive decay of elements like uranium in the inner core, and from the earth's rotational energy. In fact, some of the contribution to the slowing of the earth's rotation is due to the earth giving up some of its energy to our planet's magnetic field.The legitimacy of your concerns about losses due to heat is a function of whether such losses outweigh the ability of the earth's heat engine and kinetic rotation to contribute energy. Magnetic striping is present on most sea floors everywhere, not just near oceanic ridges. As already explained, the magnetic intensity variations are real and are not just interpretations. Analysis of sea floor cores reveals that the variations are due to opposite magnetizations of the rock composing the sea floor. You're once again confusing plate tectonics, thought to be driven by mantle currents, with generation of the earth's magnetic field, thought to include mechanisms in the earth's outer core.--Percy

Degrees are in EE and computer engineering. I don't assume anything. I accept that which is supported by evidence. The evidence suggests there is convection in the outer core. Whether the viscosity is more or less than pudding I wouldn't know, but I'd venture a guess that it's far stiffer than pudding. Perhaps someone here knows what current thinking is about the viscosity of the outer core. I presume you mean mean outer core. The inner core is believed to be solid. Stated another way, you're claiming there's a contradiction in the model, that the viscosity necessary for convection is far lower than the actual viscosity of the iron/nickle outer core at the surmised temperature and pressure. While geophysicists readily concede that we don't fully understand the mechanisms that produce the earth's magnetic field, I've never seen this contradiction mentioned. What do you base this on? So those geophysicists are an untrustworthy bunch and their methods are suspect is your objection. First, you have no objective data supporting this opinion. Second, if views of magnetic sea floor striping were not supported by the data, then the geological community's views on the subject would long ago have fragmented into a variety of conflicting opinions centered around strong personalities. Third, when the striping was first discovered, it was a mystery until the mechanisms behind it were deciphered. In other words, the striping measured by magnetometers at sea and its source in the magnetic orientation of the sea floor were uncovered before the phenomenon was ever associated with magnetic field reversals of the planet. If magnetic striping were a local phenomenon, then how does the process you describe here produce striping that switches at the same time every where around the world. If you're trying to say that the inner core may not be rotating at the same rate as the rest of the planet, we already suspected that. Here's an article about the initial finding almost ten years ago: Putting a New Spin on Earth's Core--Percy