|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And you would also interview an expert witness. That is what Joe has given you ... expert testimony along with hard evidence. As yet there is no evidence to defend Humphreys. Only some might'a beens, or could'a beens.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"And you would also interview an expert witness."
--Hey, that would sound like a good idea. "That is what Joe has given you ... expert testimony along with hard evidence. As yet there is no evidence to defend Humphreys. Only some might'a beens, or could'a beens."--His hard evidence is by the same method I did, compare and contrast, he indicated the graph on one of the pages in the book (though Humphrey's indicated he used 6 pages of information) which looks similar in relative wave-length as does Humphrey's, however it is quite different. This is what he has done, as I have also and given my suggestion. Mine however is not as superior as his. Though as I stated before he could just tell us all who do not have this resource that 'there is nothing more to see', though we all know what we would think if we were looking for good conclusive value. What is on the rest of those pages is very relevant, as well as the interpretations Humphrey's used in creating this graph. Humphrey's indicated that this was a reference, it wasn't a copy and paste or something of that nature of a specific illustration, but a reference in using those 6 pages of data as well as what he already may know or interpret in archaeomagnetic polarity. Nevertheless, ours are both as far as the given data goes, suggestions on why or why not he copied this graph and the implications of these reference pages. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
TC,
Here is a quote from Humphreys paper:Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption.[b][i][7][/b][/i] Instead, [b][i]the data show[/b][/i] that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today. JM: There's just no defending this one. Reference 7 is the MErrill and Mac book. First, the data (from Barbetti anyway) show the fluctuations around the time of Christ and not 3 millenia before! Look at what Humphreys says! Here are the ONLY other data from those pages Years BP Dipole Moment0-500 8.72 500-1000 10.30 1000-1500 10.90 1500-2000 10.94 2000-2500 11.10 2500-3000 11.28 3000-3500 9.64 3500-4000 9.21 4000-5000 8.87 5000-6000 7.20 6000-7000 6.73 7000-8000 7.08 8000-9000 8.61 9000-10000 8.26 Now, try to reproduce Humphreys curve. Here's what I get:
Do you know what I think happened? Humphreys estimated values (from the Barbetti curve shown earlier--which is only a single data set) and plugged them into graphing software. Instead of putting 2000 bp in as -2000, he simply put in 2000. When the software produced his curve, the x-axis was reversed.Here is what I got: He then drew a zero line where the present-day field was and goofed. Whether intentional or careless, it is poor science. Cheers Joe MEert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-18-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Look guys I don't know enough about this stuff, so, for the record, I'm willing to agree that Humphreys was probably a bit sloppy. I'll leave it fro TC to refute that! My gut feeling still is that he was trying to show what creationists expect to be the story in a hand wavy sort of way.
By the way, all of this stuff is giving me an interest in geophysics (most of my previous reading has been sedimentation) and I've started reading some basics. Fascinating stuff about the seismological detective work you guys do. ------------------You are go for TLI [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Sloppy is one word for it! At any rate, one does not say "the data show", give a reference, and then misrepresent what those data actually show. That's just plain bad science. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Fair enough.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: There's just no defending this one. Reference 7 is the MErrill and Mac book. First, the data (from Barbetti anyway) show the fluctuations around the time of Christ and not 3 millenia before! Look at what Humphreys says!"
--In the Barbetti reference you would be correct, though I do believe he was referencing his graph there. "Here are the ONLY other data from those pages Years BP Dipole Moment0-500 8.72 500-1000 10.30 1000-1500 10.90 1500-2000 10.94 2000-2500 11.10 2500-3000 11.28 3000-3500 9.64 3500-4000 9.21 4000-5000 8.87 5000-6000 7.20 6000-7000 6.73 7000-8000 7.08 8000-9000 8.61 9000-10000 8.26 Now, try to reproduce Humphreys curve. Here's what I get: [Image Omitted] Do you know what I think happened? Humphreys estimated values (from the Barbetti curve shown earlier--which is only a single data set) and plugged them into graphing software. Instead of putting 2000 bp in as -2000, he simply put in 2000. When the software produced his curve, the x-axis was reversed.Here is what I got: [Image Omitted] He then drew a zero line where the present-day field was and goofed. Whether intentional or careless, it is poor science."--You have presented another possibility, it may also have been that he had taken advantage of the variation in your first graph and did what he felt was the correct magnitude. Though I would still be to think that he has taken all this data, and applied it his way in producing his graph. I think Tranquility put it nicely when he used the analogy of a hand wave. Either way, I would have to agree that the way this data was compiled and produced in this article was very sloppy. He should have indicated that this was only a bit of a sloppy summary on what he may think happened. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I think that this article that he wrote is somewhat allright. Though presenting this type of work as if it were hard data with conclusions as he has is very sloppy. In the least he should have indicated that this was no more than speculation, as well as the means for constructing his graph in some detail. (if the barbetti reference graph were used, why not post that as well in his article for a start?)
------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: This is where you show your naivete about scientific writing. Nothing wrong with that since you are not yet at that level. One does not cite someone else's data and then misrepresent it in a cartoon or real graph. Rationalizations aside, this is extremely poor science. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: This is where you show your naivete about scientific writing. Nothing wrong with that since you are not yet at that level. One does not cite someone else's data and then misrepresent it in a cartoon or real graph. Rationalizations aside, this is extremely poor science."
--I already stated this is poor science either way no matter how he made the graph. It may have seemed as if I am attempting to vigourously and rigorously gloss this whole thing over, but this is how it is. The question is whether he actualy did cite someone elses data and then misrepresent it to the degree as our suggestions propose. This work IS very sloppy. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I guess the problem here is that scientists take this a little more seriously than the layman. Try to think of it as intellectual theft for the purpose of advancing one's own agenda.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andor Inactive Member |
JM, I hope you can clarify me a couple of questions.
I understand that, with time, as ocean plates become older they get thicker and denser by underplating. So eventually the plate does not float any longer and begin subducting into the mantle. With this, the movement of the plates reverse, until all plates rejoin in one big supercontinent and the cycle restarts once again. But then, the real engine of the plates movement would be, the pull of the subducting plate, and not the convection currents.?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Andor writes: I'm won't comment about underplating nor about ocean plates becoming denser with time, but sea floor formation and subduction is not thought to operate as you describe here. Sea floor is produced at mid-oceanic ridges at the rate of a few inches/year. Where sea floor meets continent it can be subducted beneath the lighter continent. This is what is happening around the Pacific perimeter. For example, the Pacific plate is subducting beneath the west coast of the US. This subduction process does not take place along the east coast of the US because the continental US is part of the North Atlantic plate, which includes the west Atlantic. Thus, as sea floor is produced at the mid-Atlantic ridge at the rate of several inches/year, the entire sea floor to the west of the ridge plus both American continents are being pushed west. You're probably correct about another supercontinent eventually forming, though. With the Americas being pushed west and with Asia possibly moving east, they may eventually collide. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: This is partially correct. However, subduction will occur when the plate becomes negatively buoyant as well. How long this takes depends on the viscosity/density contrast between the oceanic plate and the asthenosphere. Thus subduction could, at some point in the future, begin to occur beneath eastern North America even though the oceanic and continental portions of the NAP are now moving the same direction. This may be precipitated by a change in plate motion elsewhere.
quote: JM: Here's my rendition:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andor Inactive Member |
Percipient, thank you for the answer. What you say it's what I thought until I read the book "Plate Tectonics" by Jon Erickson.
If I understand correctly what he says, the movement westward of the Atlantic plate pushed by the mid-ocean ridge, will not bring together East-Asia with West-America: Before that happens, the plate will be so dense and massive that it will sink by gravity due to its own weight, and will force the reversal of the movement, so America will rejoin Europe again in the future. ?? I think in favor of this is the fact that the points of fracture of the previous supercontinents seem to be the same once and again. Do they not? [This message has been edited by Andor, 06-03-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024