Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

Nope.You have interpreted a trace left by an AC waveform with a ripple on a different DC waveform merely because the trace of the AC waveform is lower in magnitude than the actulaDC waveform. They are not comparable.The trace of the AC waveform (that is, the magnitude of the frozen-in magnetic field in the rocks) cannot be meaningfully compared to the magnitude of the DC signal (the Earth's magnetic field today). We could, of course, calcute from the trace what the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field was in the past, and indeed we have done so. For example, How Are Geomagnetic Reversals Related to Field Intensity?. And we find that the Earth's magnetic field has indeed reversed, and was sometimes greater than the current strength and sometimes less.The fact that the magnetic field of the rocks (in which the historic reversals are frozen) is less than the magnetic field of the Earth is irrelevant. Your "DC signal" is in fact an irregular and slow (in terms of human lifetimes) AC signal.

Not trying to pile on, but just pointing out another error: The data does not show magnetic intensity variations around ridges. It does show magnetic direction reveresals around ridges. the magenets frozen into the rocks point indifferent directions, with a clear pattern.

I don't know. However, I do know that many volcanic areas on land have been studied and their paleomagnetic signatures corelate with the sea floor studies. I remember stumbling across a great web site on this topic once, but I can't find it now. However, see (for example) Geochronology of the central Colorado volcanic field and LITHOLOGIC, AGE GROUP, MAGNETOPOLARITY, AND GEOCHEMICAL MAPS OF THE
SPRINGERVILLE VOLCANIC FIELD, EAST-CENTRAL ARIZONA.

As another engineer, you're being burned by ignoring reality. Even if the mechanism for reversals is really pink fairies working magic, the evidence clearly shows that reversals have occurred. Lack of a mechnanism does not trump evidence.

Kelvin calculated 98 My. Realizing he was working with lots of assumptions, he estimated his errors, yielding more than 20 My but less than 400 My. Later investigators refined his calculations (his original model was not very realistic; it predicted an unreasonable temperature gradient with depth) and used better data, culminating in an estimate of 24 million years by Clarence King in 1893.