Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

Roxrkool - Found your lecture to TC on "Mainstream Scientists" amusing. Engineers who make a living respecting laws of physics and thermodynamics would have never accepted current plate tectonic theory to begin with. It is fatally flawed without mechanisms. Doesn't the fact that no one can build a model of "convection currents" in the mantle without ignoring viscosity make the "mainstream scientists" in the earth science fraternity a little nervous that they may be suffering from groupthink?
I am an EE and understand a little about electromagnetic fields. I can tell you with confidence that the Magnetic poles have never "reversed" and especially with a nonperiodic frequency. No experienced Instrumentation Engineer would interpret fluctuating signal strength above and below an average to be a "Reversal". In the classic sense, your elite geology fraternity has interpreted a DC waveform with ripple as an AC waveform. There is no force in earth that will flip the huge gyroscopic inertia of the mass creating the flux lines of the field. PT is slowly crumbling with new data and lack of viable mechanisms.This message has been edited by Rod Nance, 01-07-2005 02:08 AM

Hey guys. I appreciate your responses. I apologize if my post came across as "Smartypants"... not my intention.Percy, your reply in message 101 states:
"...current models definitely do *not* ignore viscosity."
However, this is at odds with one of the leading University researchers attempting to model the mantle with dynamo theory. My recent inquiry to his model assumption on viscosity resulted in the following response:".....Look, Rod, you can't really expect to dive into a subject
without doing quite a bit of groundwork. For example,
the current wisdom is that (a) viscosity does not have a
significant effect on the geodynamo (b) it is not
heat alone that drives the motions. To appreciate why
people think this way, you need to do some reading, and
(if you disagree with their conclusions) propose
alternatives........"It was a private email so I will not divulge the source here. If you are interested in the source - email me. It is correct that other forces are significant in the physics of modeling the planet - especially gravitational, inertial, and centrifugal forces. Cleary, a dynamo model is appropriate for atmospheric applications like weather. But it is inappropriate for modeling the mantle - where viscosity is significant. Try getting convection currents in a pan of pudding... you will only get burned pudding. No sound engineering model would ignore or suppress viscosity.
Since the models do not work with realistic viscosity parameters, it seems the "current wisdom" among the geological fraternity, as described by the University researcher, is to ignore or minimize viscosity. That is not good science. The error is similar to that made with cold fusion claims by a couple of engineers a few years ago. It didn't work either.Others have responded with good questions about the interpretation of residual magnetism data and the "DC ripple" analogy. Since I reject the concept of convection currents due to viscosity, the best explanation I have seen for the fluctuating geomagnetic field strength is the Hydroplate theory which I stumbled on a year ago while searching some biology sources for my premed daughter.Concerning the assumptions in the Hydroplate theory...
We know the universe is not infinitely old. The universe has a starting point in time as required by the law of entropy. No matter what assumption we make about that starting point or "origin", it is - "Supernatural" by definition - beyond the scope of the scientific method. In my analysis, the Big Bang assumption is no more or no less scientific than The Hydroplate theory assumption. However, the Hydroplate theory presents working mechanisms to explain not only geological data but phenomena in other fields of science as well (astronomy).I would like to stay and debate these things with you guys but just passing through. Since I don't have the time, I would encourage you to study details of the Hydroplate theory for an alternative explanation of the geomagnetic data - with working mechanisms.I found the history of Wegener interesting. He was also an outsider to geology. His moving plates hypothesis was ignored and scorned by the geology folks for almost 50 years until the geomagnetic data was misinterpreted as horizontal seafloor spreading (another problem with respect to fundamental physics).See the Hydroplate theory - Happy hunting!This message has been edited by Rod Nance, 01-08-2005 01:11 AM

Hey Rox. Glad to see someone acknowledges the difficulties. OK, even if we ignore some major physics problems and assume that convection currents somehow occur What do you propose is generating the alleged electric currents (amperage) that continually generates the geomagnetic field?Some in the geological community seem to think that the alleged convection currents alone would generate these large electric currents responsible for the magnetic field reaching thousands of miles into space. This could be true of there were strong flux lines being traversed from a preexisting magnetic field and associated current.There is no adequate answer for this that I have found. Even more difficult for the proposed geodynamo model sustaining electric current as the source of the magnetic field is the fact that these large electric currents would dissipate into heat at an astonishingly quick rate. Electric current (amperage) flows through conductive materials like iron at near the speed of light. Every millimeter of electric current flow generates heat at the rate of: amperage squared times the resistance of the medium in the length of flow (millimeter in this case). This conversion from amperage to heat happens quickly through conductive materials as seen in ionized air during lightning strikes. As the electric current is fully converted to heat, the magnetic field collapses and disappears. You hear the temporary electromagnetic field interference as static on your AM radio as lightning discharges the current into heat - and then the static is gone because the electromgnetic field collapsed.So what mechanism would you propose that continually generates and sustains the proposed large and relatively stable (in human time) electrical currents? Some folks mention self-perpetuating or self sustaining electric currents by some mysterious and unknown mechanism. Here is one thought and another: Huh? Claims similar to perpetual motion always raise eyebrows among engineers. Glatzmaier and Roberts have tried to show a self sustaining field is possible. Before you blindly accept the claims — ask them the tough questions and see what is actually built into their model for viscosity and heat I (electrical current) squared times R (resistance) losses. If you are interested, I can provide an email address.Again, a couple of guys in Utah claimed to have demonstrated cold fusion a few years ago — and claimed to have the lab results to prove it! In the final analysis, the cold fusion claims were quickly falsified due to flawed assumptions and methodology.When one scrutinizes the seafloor spreading and supposed magnetic pole reversals, the theory may be viewed as Rathergate science in which a conclusion has been made from flawed interpretation of data (magnetic intensity variations around ridges proves seafloor spreading). Therefore, the proponents of the geodynamo theory must attempt to validate the story with faulty methodology and mechanisms regardless of blogger criticisms (engineers saying Whoaaaa — that doesn’t work!.)The US Geological Survey Website and others acknowledge there are unanswered questions behind plate tectonics and the associated convection currents and geomagnetic electrical currents: Also: And if you prefer criticism of plate tectonics theory from another who is not associated with the Creation or Intelligent Design philosophies, see: This is an interesting site. The author’s proposed Earth Expansion theory actually parallels the Hydroplate theory fit to data in some ways but there is no real mechanism offered for explaining earth expansion. The author had not heard of the Hydroplate theory before a couple of weeks ago.In summary, after almost forty years of analysis, there are no reasonable mechanisms for plate tectonics (seafloor spreading and geomagnetic electrical currents undergoing pole reversals and causing magnetic variation around the ridge) within the confines of physics and thermodynamics. We will likely see (slowly over time) more and more evidence that is difficult to explain within the context of plate tectonics (Ptolemy Epicycles?).As in Rathergate, one option is to conclude the critics are just political hacks (Creationist dupes) and ignore these critiques. I believe that would lead to the eventual risk of geological fraternal credibility. Unfortunatley, there are no credible alternatives that support the current geological world view fit to data unless a mechanism could be found for earth expansion.Some may say that the plate tectonics explanations for geomagnetic variation are still true based on what we "know to be true" - even though the theory may be flawed (or not fully understood). I can sympathize with that view but that approach doesn't sell well and didn't work for CBS.It is a common malady (myself included) that we don't know what we don't know. So I appreciate this forum as it is helpful to freely exchange thoughts and information.

Greetings Percy. What engineering discipline is your forte? My experience is mechanical and electrical engineers are most knowledgeable and familiar with the application of Thermodynamics and physics. Please see post 116 for more detail on physics concerns. You are right Percy that most models do not "ignore" viscosity. I believe I used the term "ignore or suppress" viscosity in the previous post. Also I have used the term "realistic viscosity". Didn't mean to mix the terms.We know that the boiling point of water is noticeably lower in Denver, Colorado, than in Miami due to differences in a few ounces of atmosphieric pressure (approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level). Thus it takes longer to boil eggs in Denver. If we consider that the pressures at Earth's core likely range somewhere between twenty million to sixty million pounds per square inch (wide range for discussion purposes), do you believe it is realistic to assume liquid iron (with impurities) will have viscosity less than pudding on your stove - even at high temperatures? This is what I mean by ignoring or suppressing viscosity in models. I have found several methods used by geological folks to promote the concept of a low viscosity in the core - but they are questionable at best. Others estimate the actual viscosity at that depth to be as much as 12 orders of magnitude higher. A realistic value for viscosity at the core is probably at least several orders of magnitude higher than the geological community is prone to use in models (approaching viscosity of water at atmospheric pressure) in support of geodynamo theory. If you begin with the assumption that the dynamo theory is true... what choice do you have? You must use a relatively low viscosity to model actual convection currents at the core - or convection will not ever occur. Actually, low heat flow properties are equally critical for convection to begin but that is another topic. Percy, I have worked on a drilling rig and taken many samples. Can you detail for me the method used to collect these core samples from the Atlantic sea floor with proper sample orientation for analysis? If so, what confidence level do you have that the testing method was subject to the same stringent testing requirements to eliminate bias as say - the medical community? Are you aware of geologists ever using "blind" tests for dating purposes? I don't mean this to be overly critical of the discipline but there are plenty of accolades and big dollars for someone in the geological research fraternity which could induce even unintended bias in methodology. To my knowledge, the discipline has not been as stringent on dating and sampling as other disciplines - where lives depend on it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, we must ask what confidence level you have that the core location was undisturbed for however many million years it should represent in PT theory? According to PT theory hasn't that relatively new seafloor been pushed and jostled around quite a bit by some driving force at the ridge?
Do you assume that "seafloor spreading force" is uniform and linear over millions of years? Few things in nature are... Assuming we could find a plausible mechanism for convection currents and electrical current generated magnetic fields, this interpretation would have more credibility (see post 116). The more robust explanation, in my view, is magnetic field strength variation as a function of the very deep parallel and transvers crevices (smokers) caused by the Atlantic floor "balooning" outward around the ridge as proposed in the Hydroplate theory. I am glad you point this out. I would add "huge flips in the mantle or core inertial mass". It raises another question. If you believe that the inner core (thought to be almost as large as the moon) is largely iron, any geomagnetic field must either be caused by - or result in - electrical currents in the inner core. In fact, even if there were some layer of non-conductive insulating material on the exterior of the inner core, we should expect (by conduction or induction) the inner core to be a MAJOR player in the dissipation of geomagnetic electrical currents into heat. I would bet a good steak dinner this is also not included in models of the geodynamo.The more logical explanation of the geomagnetic field is the inner core including elements containing permanent magnet properties rotating at a different axis and spin rate than the crust. This would also indicate a past change in the pole axis relative to the crust (but not reversal) and slight pole wandering - but by a different mechanism than convection currents. No supercomputer needed to analyze that configuration and it doesn't violate known physical laws.

Agreed. If one cannot explain the cause of the motion with any working mechanisms after over forty years - it may be time to consider the underlying assumptions and the validity of the model (see posts 116 & 117). There are other mechanisms proposed to explain the movement.

Agreed - but not without a reasonable understanding and explanation of the working mechanisms that caused that ripple - especially when alternative logical and simple causes are more common (posts 116 & 117).

Agreed. Please see posts 116-present.

Love your humor. Gildna Radnor is a favorite! Please see post 117. Thanks Percy. I liked "Hydroplate Hippie" so much that I decided to adopt it as my screen name.

Hey Ned. Depends upon which observations, underlying assumptions, etc. you are talking about. You would need to be more specific. As noted earlier with several references including USGS, current PT theory fails to explain many things.
I know there are many dissenting views about PT but it is fair to say "current PT theory" and assumptions have changed significantly in recent years... slab pull vs ridge push, core spin rate and axis, etc. There are still so many questions about proposed PT theory mechanisms that I expect there will will be more epicycles mounting with what we currently think we "know".
For now, the topic is Earth's geomagnetic field and alleged seafloor spreading.

Hello Edge! Are you asserting that pyroxenite (etc.) under twenty five million pounds of pressure per square inch (or more) has a viscosity number less than pudding and approaching the viscosity of water at atmospheric pressure? Please read posts 116 and 117 for more detail and questions... interested in your response...I believe I do realize the depth of the issue. Without a geomagnetic field controlled by a geodynamo of convection currents somehow operating similar to my old Lava Lamp - but generating huge perpetually self-sustained electrical currents (with no perceivable losses in a resistive medium)....... pole reversals and plate tectonics are ever more questionable.These are my first posts and are intended to be in the spirit of knowledge and understanding through discussion - not as an insult.... there are plenty of insults to go around already!

Percy, your guess is most likely correct. According to understood laws, the viscosity should be extremely high. What would generate the titanic forces you imagined pushing highly viscous mass — heat differential alone?Did you guys critically review the paper referenced by Coragyp in post 124 presenting evidence for low viscosity so that convection currents would have a reasonable chance in the outer core?
I saw some flaws. But I am not the only one.
Seems the geological and geophysical community are determined to conclude that iron has unrealistically low viscosity under extreme pressure (mysteriously unique from other metals) but other disciplines keep bringing them back in line.Here is another paper copyrighted from the American Institute of Physics extrapolating extremely high viscosities - up to 100 billion Pa-s. Shortened diplay form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}And here is a very recent paper analyzing the methods used and the conclusions drawn from the claimed viscosities in the source given by Coragyp. The fact is we don’t know what the viscosity really is - but our experience and knowledge of thermodynamics points to a relatively high value. Regardless, viscosity is only part of the problem for supposed convection currents in the outer core and proposed geomagnetic field reversal.This message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-21-2005 02:01 AMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-21-2005 09:43 AM

Big Grin... Yup. I went there once and haven’t been back. Dickson Street has improved though.

You may have missed this reference given in post 117. Also, When you say no one says what you claim — see Gengar’s post 128.If you are taking issue with the magnetic field reaching thousands of miles into space? That is pretty common knowledge. My statement in post 116 was: Claims similar to perpetual motion always raise eyebrows among engineers.
Let me provide the references again Edge look for phrases like self-sustaining dynamo and self perpetuating. Self-sustaining dynamo and self perpetuating plumes are similar to perpetual motion. Edge, I have not stated that any web site is pretty funny In fact, I have expressed appreciation for this one. I have not offered any web site for you. I suggest you read the posts more carefully. You seem to have difficulty staying on topic. But while you are at it, you may as well give the specific web site reference for your quote above (whatever it is). Again Edge, I haven’t recommended a web site. Not sure what your IQ was initially but you are not adding any value to this exchange of knowledge and understanding through discussion. No offense Edge, but I have very limited time for your lack of substance and method of debate.This message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-21-2005 01:17 AM

127 Edge Edge, I trust you can find and research the Hydroplate theory on your own. It seems to be getting quite popular. Here is an independent reference for you.

Hello Gengar. Like you, this thread was my first dip into the EvCForum. Not even a lurker before I do appreciate your posts and have found your approach to be refreshing in the exchange of information and ideas.As you have mentioned, heat will dissipate via convection currents if the Rayleigh number is high enough. The onset of convection will occur when the product of the viscosity and the thermal diffusivity is sufficiently low in the denominator.Application of fundamental thermodynamics of iron and impurities in the outer core result in relatively high values for viscosity and thermal diffusivity for iron and impurities at core pressures. Assuming for a moment that convection actually does somehow occur in the outer core, the speed of a convection cell would be relatively slow.
The flow of electrical current is determined by Ohms Law. The path of electrical current would be through all iron in the core — through and around convection cells. The speed of electrical current approaches the speed of light. Current flow through a resistive medium like the core ALWAYS dissipates into heat by the square of the electrical current times the resistance of the medium. Large electrical currents necessary for the geomagnetic field must continually be regenerated as they dissipate into heat.So convection currents and electrical currents are distinctly different and there is no reason to assume physical interdependence between them at all.The proposed geodynamo convection currents have no mechanism to generate the required electrical current on the scale to continually emanate the geomagnetic field.In addition, here is another reference acknowledging that successful computer models of the geodynamo must suppress several parameters (not just viscosity) to actually achieve convection.From the Royal Astronomical Society
Even with modern supercomputers, models cannot be run with the correct values for several key parameters, which are currently wrong by many orders of magnitude.
The Royal Astronomical SocietyI would add that the problem is not likely the lack of computing power. The problem is more likely the assumptions that convection currents actually occur and are responsible for the geomagnetic field. Supercomputers have been successfully used to model many other complex three dimensional real world phenomena within the constraints of physical laws. When properly applied, we can actually use computer model results to predict, observe, and verify real world phenomena. This is done successfully in many industry and military models.This message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-21-2005 02:29 AM