Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

Well the intensity fluctuations have been corroborated as reversals via drillcore data on the seafloor and on land. To the best of my knowledge only the most bizarre of creationists now deny magnetic reversals. Most creationists assert that they happened in a hurry rather than outright denial of the obvious.CheersJoe Meert

Measuring samples in the field for reversals. I made up (long ago) a very simple explanation of the process for sampling. You can find it at the link below:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/faqs.htmPlease do not criticize the answers to these questions too much. I've not updated the page in 5 years and it was meant for some middle school students who asked me to put it on the web.CheersJoe Meert

HH, I'll try to address each of your questions. Let's start with your assertions regarding Wegener:

quote:

---

As you know Joe, Wegener was not a geologist — he was an outsider with good analytical skills. How did the geological community react to Wegener’s proposals?

---

JM: There are several important points to note. The first, and most important, is that Wegener took his ideas to the scientific community. He laid out his arguments, he published them. He then presented them to the Geologic community in the normal scientific forums. This is in stark contrast to Walt's approached. He has 'published' everything in a book he peddles at Church speaking engagements. He has refused an invitation to submit an article through the normal scientific venues and has not, to my knowledge, ever presented his results at an AGU (American Geophysical Union) or GSA (Geological Society of America) meeting. It's also misleading to conclude that Wegener had no support in the geologic community. DuToit (a south African), Sam Carey (better known for his expanding earth ideas) and Arthur Holmes all reacted favorably to Wegener's ideas. In fact, many European scientists were favorably disposed towards continental mobility. Wegener's science and approach to science is far bolder than Walt Brown. Why don't you ask Brown why he is afraid of presenting his ideas to the scientific community?CheersJoe Meert

HH, I'll try to address each of your questions. Let's start with your assertions regarding Wegener:

quote:

---

As you know Joe, Wegener was not a geologist — he was an outsider with good analytical skills. How did the geological community react to Wegener’s proposals?

---

JM: There are several important points to note. The first, and most important, is that Wegener took his ideas to the scientific community. He laid out his arguments, he published them. He then presented them to the Geologic community in the normal scientific forums. This is in stark contrast to Walt's approached. He has 'published' everything in a book he peddles at Church speaking engagements. He has refused an invitation to submit an article through the normal scientific venues and has not, to my knowledge, ever presented his results at an AGU (American Geophysical Union) or GSA (Geological Society of America) meeting. It's also misleading to conclude that Wegener had no support in the geologic community. DuToit (a south African), Sam Carey (better known for his expanding earth ideas) and Arthur Holmes all reacted favorably to Wegener's ideas. In fact, many European scientists were favorably disposed towards continental mobility. Wegener's science and approach to science is far bolder than Walt Brown. Why don't you ask Brown why he is afraid of presenting his ideas to the scientific community?CheersJoe Meert

Percy, I don't know how I double post, but I am getting good at it

No, I am on a university server using Explorer 6.0. Actually, I think I've figured out when (not how or why) this happens. The last time I posted and hit submit I got an 'error can't find page' message so I hit back and submit again. I believe that's what happened the other time it double posted.CheersJoe Meert

Just EVC so far.CheersJoe Meert

A really good book on magnetic polarity stratigraphy is "Magnetic Stratigraphy" by my colleagues at Florida Neil Opdyke and Jim Channell. Neil is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the winner of numerous awards from the Geophysics community, Jim is a fellow in the American Geophysical Union. The book outlines the evidence and the assembly of the magnetostratigraphic time scale. I've linked to the Amazon website below: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-22-2005 11:31 AMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-22-2005 11:46 AM

JM: Not quite true, I mentioned several very influential and well-known Earth Scientists who found the drift hypothesis very attractive. The main point here is that Wegener behaved as a scientist and took his arguments to the geologic community. Walt Brown is known only to a few of us who battle the creationists. In contrast, Wegener and his ideas were known to nearly all geologists of his time. JM: Name two well-known geologists who embrace the hydroplate hypothesis (it cannot rightly be called a theory). JM: In 1974 plate tectonics was still in its infancy. You can find many similar criticisms early on. I am always dubious when someone trots out quote snippets. Georef gives the sources for some of your quotes, but they are either in difficult to obtain journals or books. The L&B reference is not given in GEOREF and Saull believes that the earth is expanding. Nevertheless, all of these folks (with perhaps the exception of L&B) took their arguments before the geologic community something Walt refuses to do. I think you need to get out a little more often because a number of proposals have been featured in the recent literature that explain continental motion via mechanisms other than plate tectonics. Interestingly, there is not a single reference to Walt's work. You should tell Walt, that Spring is here and it's time to plant. JM: In order to 'wither on the vine', it must be planted. Hydroplate is invisible to mainstream geology because Walt refuses to take his arguments before the geologic community. Have you asked Walt why he won't submit or present his work to geologists via the normal venues? Walt's ideas are completely grounded in the Noachian flood myth. He started with his interpretation of the bible and then force fit his biblical interpretation into hydroplates. JM: It's how science gets done. Online journals still undergo peer-review. Paradigms change because of the process of peer-review and critical self-reflection. Nearly every one of the authors you cited above took their arguments to the scientific community. Walt will not change geology hiding his 'lamp' under a bushel.CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-28-2005 09:37 AM

JM: Of course it's legitimate science to determine how the Earth's magnetic field is generated and reverses. They are both real puzzles. However, although we don't yet know the answer to either question, the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field and that the field reverses are not in question. The body of scientific evidence for both is overwhelming. As to your points 1,2 and 3: You are being a bit disingenous with several of your questions. Statements like: JM: are useless and misleading. The first problem is that you make the assumption that because we do not yet have an answer, then all proposals should be taken as equal. That is not true. The second assumes that that we do not have any proposed mechanisms for generating a field. Dynamos have been known for a long time and Maxwell's equations tell us quite simply that a moving current will produce a magnetic field and that moving a magnetic field in a conducting medium will produce a current. The more important question is does the Earth's magnetic field behave like a dynamo (even if we don't know the particulars). The answer is a resounding YES! We know from paleomagnetic studies that the Earth has a magnetic field as far back as 3 billion years and that it periodically reverses. We know that a static field cannot be maintained for that amount of time and a static field will not produce reversals. You can argue about the stripes on the ocean floor to your hearts content, but we DO observe normal and reverse polarities in rocks. We can also test these rocks to see whether or not they are self-reversing. In all but a very few cases (Haruna dacite) we know that they are not. The only mechanism to sustain a reversing field for 3+ billion years is via a dynamo. Saying that there is no known mechanism is false, you should more accurately state that there are many known mechanisms, but we don't yet know how applicable they are to the earth's field. For a review of these models, please see Merrill et al.'s book "The Magnetic Field of the Earth". Given that we know the Earth has a magnetic field and that the magnetic field reverses, questions 2-4 are meaningless. In science, we proceed along lines of enquiry that will bear fruit based on first-order observations. You can deny that magnetic reversals are real and you can deny that the earth has a magnetic field, but that won't produce much useful science. A better approach is to take the observations and ask "Hmm, how does one sustain a self-reversing magnetic such as the one we observe"? There are real questions about how we generate a self-reversing dynamo in the Earth and the focus should be on those questions.CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-28-2005 13:28 AM