Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

This topic originated from some discussion I tried to initiate in the "Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift" thread. The load was already high in there so I will make a thread just for the topic of geomagnetism.I have done my analysis and a preliminary copy of an article I will be illustrating it in can be found here:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...is%20Grose/geomag.htmBut if those wishing to participate in this thread do not want to take the 5 minutes to read it I will quote the main points:

quote:

---

In this paper is my analysis of geomagnetic data and the duration of polarity chrons for the past "180 Ma" and a comparison with bathymetric data. When plotting the distribution of geomagnetic polarity chrons we find that there is a very interesting acceleration and deceleration in the quantities of geomagnetic reversals in successive spans of time as we move from the oldest sea-floor to their corresponding spreading centers. 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.

​

What we also find is that anomalies in bathymetric data correlates very well with the geomagnetic data. The correlation described in this paper appears to be incompatible with uniformitarian plate tectonics because it would imply ridiculous rates of sea-floor spreading and violate the assumption that it is relatively constant.

---

The above figure illustrates the quantity of geomagnetic reversals seen in each successive "3 Ma" span of sea-floor. The red line indicates the inferred rate of sea-floor spreading.

quote:

---

Mainstream scientists have interpreted the extent of polarity chrons not as the rate of sea-floor spreading, but as the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. They assume the rate of sea-floor spreading has always been relatively constant. Indeed as will be shown, if they were to consider that the width of polarity chrons as indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading they would quickly discover that the implied divergence velocities are incompatible with uniformitarian plate tectonics.

---

quote:

---

Simply looking at the plot[Above figure] gives good reason to question that if it is representative of the frequency of geomagnetic reversals (in contrast to the rate of sea-floor spreading) that it is difficult to see them as random occurrences. Though if we consider the data not as the frequency of geomagnetic reversals, but the rate of sea-floor spreading we can still make use of geodynamo models that agree with geomagnetic reversals being random. "With a random reversal process there would be no continuity between successive reversals; as soon as a reversal was completed, the next one would be as likely to occur immediately as at any time later."(Lowrie 1997). Indeed, lowrie goes on to assert:

quote:

---

In fact this model does not fit the observed lengths of polarity intervals very well... It seems more likely that the process that causes reversals is not completely random.[ref 3 in the article]

---

However, if we assume uniformitarian plate tectonics and were to also consider the occurrence of geomagnetic reversals as non-random, why would it follow such a correlation as is seen in Figure 1[see above figure]? This would, in a uniformitarian perspective, indicate that there was an average decrease in the frequency of reversals as Pangea split until right about mid-duration, thereafter only to increase gradually all the way up until recent times. This seems more difficult to imagine than to interpret this as an indication that plate divergence since the breakup of Pangea began with an acceleration in sea-floor spreading, followed by a deceleration to current values.

---

The other feature explained in the article is that from contrasting analysis of the bathymetric data with the geomagnetic data:

quote:

---

Figure 4.1 has taken bathymetric data originally produced in Turcotte and Schubert (2002) and has marked anomalous deflections from the PM 95 line[see ref 7 in the article] with ovals and the time-span in which the anomalies occur have been marked with bars. These bars have been placed in respective proportion in Figure 4.2. The white arrows indicate whether the deflection from the estimated bathymetry in Figure 4.1 is positive or negative. Since faster spreading rates imply elevated bathymetry, geomagnetic data would have to correlate inversely. For this reason the inverted black arrows in Figure 4.2 have been added.

---

quote:

---

Rapid spreading rates would have to imply that--since the oceanic lithosphere is carried longer distances from the mid-ocean ridge in a given span of time--the spreading sea-floor had to already have traveled quite a distance before the curie temperature would be reached. If we are to take into consideration the runaway subduction mechanism for CPT we would have to account for this and shift the bathymetric data to the right, relative to the geomagnetic data in order for timing to overlap. Looking at Figure 4.2 this is very appealing because shifting the bathymetric data to the right by about ~5 Ma creates a near perfect match. Decreases in the quantity of geomagnetic reversals in a given span of time complement elevated bathymetry.

---

--Concluding I assert that "Why we see all of this does not fit well with uniformitarian plate tectonics, however is easily explained with an episode of CPT."--Here is a geomagnetic polarity timescale since ~160 Ma (after Lowrie, 1997, based on Harland et al., 1990).http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...ose/Images/lowrie.gif------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2003]

quote:

---

This topic originated from some discussion I tried to initiate in the "Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift" thread. The load was already high in there so I will make a thread just for the topic of geomagnetism.

​

I have done my analysis and a preliminary copy of an article I will be illustrating it in can be found here:

​

http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...is%20Grose/geomag.htm

---

Umm, TC, I hate to point out the obvious, but have you noticed that your period of accelerated plate tectonics is about 40 million years long? Could you please explain how this fits in with a biblical flood? Have you calculated the actual rates of spreading rather than some relative rate that is apparently something divided by the rate of reversal which is zero for the time interval in question? Why not put actual numbers on the graph for the rate of spreading?You are wrong, by the way in saying that geologists think the rate of spreading has been constant since the Triassic Period. There has long been recognized a higher rate of spreading in the Cretaceous which correlates with several other geological events. However, no one comes up with anything like the rates that you and Baumgardner seem to find reasonable.

Hey TC how's it going? Edge has a good point - 40 million years is too long for a biblical flood, which is why Dr. Baumgardner developed CPT. If he's trying to prove that a flood could have happened 4000 years ago, then it's a bit far off the mark.Edge is also right in saying that geologists do not assume a constant rate of continental drift - we don't. The prevailing theory is that the rates were much higher in early Earth history, i.e. 3 billion years ago.'Course, this is all relatively speaking. The figures that CPT requires are astronomical in comparison.Do you remember my post in the other topic about what we would expect to see if CPT had happened? Stuff like very extensive volcanic sequences, and incredibly high strain rates? The discovery of things like this could prove CPT - so why isn't anyone looking for them?The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

In case you didn't notice, your entire premise is based on some kind of periodicity. I should add that I have never heard anyone suggest that magnetic reversals are periodic. Since we don't really know the mechanism of reversal it would be foolish to make such an assumption as you seem to have done.

TC, from your paper:

quote:

---

However, with new developments in young earth geodynamics such as Runaway Subduction and the acceptance and appreciable success of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics(CPT), that geomagnetic reversals have occurred no longer needs to be a subject of such intense debate.

---

(emphasis mine)TC, the bolded portion of that statement is enough for any mainstream scientist to stop taking you seriously. That statement is a baldface lie and you know it. CPT is NOT accepted by the scientific community (I notice you do not specify by whom it is accepted) nor is it at all successful.As a scientist, it is your responsibility to be completely honest and up-front about everything you present. You should have mentioned the fact that no one except Creationists believe CPT is possible, as well as all the problems with it (you remember the heat problem, right?). The fact that you made no effort to do so smacks of intentional deceit and misrepresentation. It is disheartening, to say the least.If misrepresenting the truth is what you have to do in order to get published, then you should sacrifice that option and not publish. You better think long and hard about what you want here TC, especially if you want to have a successful career in this field. Also, if you are having to comprimise the quality of science in order to prove your position, then it is not science. Do you want to be known as a scientist or a *scientist?*As for your paper, it is woefully incomplete. Besides presenting questionable interpretations (lack of supporting evidence), misrepresenting mainstream science (as Edge points out), and leaving us guessing the units for your spreading rate data (which looks like an inverted plot of the geomag data), you haven't nearly done enough work for this paper to warrant it being called a research paper. Or is it just an article? Even then you have a lot more work to do.You need to look for other forms of supporting evidence, such as the strain and volcanic issues Rockhound mentioned, how your Biblical timeline fits into the mainstream one as Edge asks, Percy's oceanic sedimentation issue, or other things such as:1. is your interpretation consistent with continental paleomag data?2. is your interpretation consistent with all the other spreading centers? Or how does it compare?And this is just a very very short list of things you will have to consider.And...

quote:

---

[6] - Grose, C.J., Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, 2003. In Press

---

In press where?[This message has been edited for clarity by roxrkool, 07-19-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-19-2003]

quote:

---

As for your paper, it is woefully incomplete. Besides presenting questionable interpretations (lack of supporting evidence), misrepresenting mainstream science (as Edge points out), and leaving us guessing the units for your spreading rate data (which looks like an inverted plot of the geomag data), you haven't nearly done enough work for this paper to warrant it being called a research paper. Or is it just an article? Even then you have a lot more work to do.

---

It is interesting how TC has mistakenly subtituted 'some unspecified distance' per reversal for cm/year in describing rates of continental drift. When there are no reversals, or no information (which is very possible in this case); the rate suddenly climbs to infinity. Obviously a very silly analysis based on some odd assumptions that NO one would find reasonable.

--Sorry about my absence, I've been trying to keep up on my research, and not only on the topic in this thread and others."Umm, TC, I hate to point out the obvious, but have you noticed that your period of accelerated plate tectonics is about 40 million years long?"
--I think you already know the answer to that one... I've been here almost 2 years, have you been following any of my 2000+ posts? Or are you just waiting for me to mention accelerated decay so you can diverge the topic for this thread over to that 'presupposition'??"Have you calculated the actual rates of spreading rather than some relative rate that is apparently something divided by the rate of reversal which is zero for the time interval in question? Why not put actual numbers on the graph for the rate of spreading?"
--Because, (1)the extent of normal and reversed polarity chrons themselves are probably still, for the most part random, and (2) since the frequency of geomagnetic reversals has been shown(theoretically) to be effected by the mean heat flow and distribution of diverse heat flow values at the CMB(core-mantle boundary). These were my initial reasons for not being able to register numerical values for the sea-floor spreading rate. Settling for relative rates inferred from the geomagnetic data is the best I could do and is sufficient for my conclusions(ie, that the implied rate of sea-floor spreading at various times, especially during about the mid-history since the Pangean breakup)."You are wrong, by the way in saying that geologists think the rate of spreading has been constant since the Triassic Period. There has long been recognized a higher rate of spreading in the Cretaceous which correlates with several other geological events. However, no one comes up with anything like the rates that you and Baumgardner seem to find reasonable."
--I am more than well aware of this. Anyone who has studied eustasy in the past and the geophysical factors in its variance should--even on a basic level. I said "relatively constant", not "constant, period". I'm sure you wouldn't hammer other geophysics authors (eg. Turcotte, Schubert, Lowrie, et al.) for saying the same thing... reading in context is important. Just because I am writing a paper in the YECist perspective, doesn't mean that I don't understand these things.

"The prevailing theory is that the rates were much higher in early Earth history, i.e. 3 billion years ago."
--Sure was, indeed the earths mean surface heat flux was twice that today(on uniformitarian time-scales). Surely we all know the function of the earths surface heat flux on the topography and bathymetry of the oceanic lithosphere!"Do you remember my post in the other topic about what we would expect to see if CPT had happened? Stuff like very extensive volcanic sequences, and incredibly high strain rates? The discovery of things like this could prove CPT - so why isn't anyone looking for them?"
--I'm not looking to 'prove CPT', but to model the history of the earth and examine the possibility of a young earth.

"In case you didn't notice, your entire premise is based on some kind of periodicity. I should add that I have never heard anyone suggest that magnetic reversals are periodic. Since we don't really know the mechanism of reversal it would be foolish to make such an assumption as you seem to have done."
--So much for modeling the geodynamo! You should read up on some of Glatzmaier's recent works.

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

"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."
--Then explain the frequency of geomagnetic reversals please. There is nothing I am ignoring here, unless you have something for me.--If you do cannot acknowledge the tremendous significance of this observation then you seriously need to read up on some of Glatzmaier's latest works.[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-13-2003]

"TC, the bolded portion of that statement is enough for any mainstream scientist to stop taking you seriously."
--Agreed, I did not mean to express the assertion the way I did. Of course my paper was a preliminary copy and still has problems which I know of more detrimental than any of you in this thread or any other have mentioned. Of course I will have to do plenty of revision."If misrepresenting the truth is what you have to do in order to get published, then you should sacrifice that option and not publish."
--Or maybe, I could just revise my paper?"1. is your interpretation consistent with continental paleomag data?2. is your interpretation consistent with all the other spreading centers? Or how does it compare?"
--Yes to both, the magnetization of rock is not a local phenomena. And the process of sea-floor spreading occurrs in the same way and by the same mechanisms throughout all active ocean ridges on earth--I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise.--Now, about the frequency of geomagnetic reversals on the 10^8 scale as seen in the figures--how do you explain this? And give a direct reason why interpreting the data as indicative of the rate of sea-floor spreading is not possible or plausible.

quote:

---

"Umm, TC, I hate to point out the obvious, but have you noticed that your period of accelerated plate tectonics is about 40 million years long?"

​

--I think you already know the answer to that one... I've been here almost 2 years, have you been following any of my 2000+ posts? Or are you just waiting for me to mention accelerated decay so you can diverge the topic for this thread over to that 'presupposition'??

---

You mean the presupposition of accelerated decay? Am I to believe you are gullible enough to believe in this, and probably c-decay, as well? In that case you must have some evidence. What is it? Since you haven't produced any evidence for CPT, I suggest that you haven't any for these, either.Or are you saying that these graphs are evidence for CPT? LOL!

quote:

---

"Have you calculated the actual rates of spreading rather than some relative rate that is apparently something divided by the rate of reversal which is zero for the time interval in question? Why not put actual numbers on the graph for the rate of spreading?"

​

--Because, (1)the extent of normal and reversed polarity chrons themselves are probably still, for the most part random, ...

---

Which would invalidate your method, thank you.

quote:

---

...and (2) since the frequency of geomagnetic reversals has been shown(theoretically) to be effected by the mean heat flow and distribution of diverse heat flow values at the CMB(core-mantle boundary). These were my initial reasons for not being able to register numerical values for the sea-floor spreading rate.

---

Well, we wouldn't want you to be constrained by actual data.

quote:

---

Settling for relative rates inferred from the geomagnetic data is the best I could do and is sufficient for my conclusions(ie, that the implied rate of sea-floor spreading at various times, especially during about the mid-history since the Pangean breakup).

---

That does not answer the criticism that you have used a term that equals zero in the denominator. This actually gives you an infinite rate of plate velocity. This betrays your method. I suppose that would account for the moon, however...Really, TC, this is silly.

quote:

---

"You are wrong, by the way in saying that geologists think the rate of spreading has been constant since the Triassic Period. There has long been recognized a higher rate of spreading in the Cretaceous which correlates with several other geological events. However, no one comes up with anything like the rates that you and Baumgardner seem to find reasonable."

​

--I am more than well aware of this. Anyone who has studied eustasy in the past and the geophysical factors in its variance should--even on a basic level. I said "relatively constant", not "constant, period".

---

Relative to what?

quote:

---

I'm sure you wouldn't hammer other geophysics authors (eg. Turcotte, Schubert, Lowrie, et al.) for saying the same thing... reading in context is important. Just because I am writing a paper in the YECist perspective, doesn't mean that I don't understand these things.

---

I might. I criticize geophysicists all the time. It's part of my job. Can you give me a quote to that effect? And can you verify what they mean by relatively constant compared to your variability?Have you ever decided what evidence should be left behind by CPT? How would it be different from normal, uniformitarian geological features? See, this is what you need, but you have been unwilling to address this issue.

quote:

---

"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."

​

--Then explain the frequency of geomagnetic reversals please. There is nothing I am ignoring here, unless you have something for me.

---

I think you need to show that there IS frequency first.

quote:

---

--If you do cannot acknowledge the tremendous significance of this observation then you seriously need to read up on some of Glatzmaier's latest works.

---

Glatzmaier has evidence? Please show us...

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