Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct

--Apparently according to Humphrey's paper on Paleomagnetism in contrast with your photocopy, there isn't much that can be said except that there is a lack in data/information here. I made an effort in comparing and contrasting these data:--As you can see there is a lot that goes unanswered with Humphrey's rudimentary and incomplete graph. It seems to be a blurry vision of Humphrey's here rather than hard data. He has not labeled his graphing so it is quite difficult to interpret. I have re-created these two graphs (if you wish to check for considerable accuracy, do as you please) to make them more readable and highlighted some inconsistencies.
--In the first graph, a recreation of Humphrey's reference #7 (relying on Meerts copy) Red lining indicates about a 40-44% field strength. And the teal lining indicates an approx Flood date.
--In the second graph, in attempting to put it to a numerical scale I have labeled it using information from both sources. Humphrey's says that 'archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then'. The black horizontal lining indicates the first scale and Teal represents A second Scale. The blue vertical lining indicates the birth of Jesus. The Red Horizontal linings indicate two possible locations for a scale to start at 40% Field Strength. In this you could infer two possible locations for where 1000 A.D. is (yellow filled circles). The light teal transparent segment would indicate a time of the Flood.
--I think it is a bit obvious with this amount of information to conclude that his graphing are not information based and are vaguely theoretical. IOW, this is not a graph which was taken from something, but has taken one or two pieces of data and the rest was conjured up by some unknown reason or method, whether significant or not.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

"I have heard that the human mind can rationalize anything, and now I believe it. Sorry, TC, but you cannot, in any way, justify this. If you look at the original diagrams, Humphreys even matches the assymetry of the first peak after (on his diagram, the last) the broad high that forms the first part of the diagram. This cannot be a coincidence, because Humphreys actually cites the original work. Humphreys has cooked someone else's data. I think Enron is looking for some new executives if he ever decides to change careers."
--Yes and this is the peice of data he used, the Declination from relatively 40 field strength which he cites. What I suggested is that Humphreys is not based considerably on data, but that it is nothing more than a vague speculation, his field strength fluctuates are even much to artificial, he has not even labeled his graph with field strength quantities or was the factor of time taken into consideration. This graph of his is evidently not a data profile, but something Humphrey's seemingly is attempting to get a rough copy of what he has in mind."By the way, I note that your diagrams need more annotation and that you leave out some of Humphreys' wild speculation that might actually belie some of the errors in his logic. You shouldn't be covering up for him, and if I were you, I'd put as much distance between me and his "data" as possible."
--Well I am certainly not at all attempting to cover up for him. If he was deliberatelly misleading, I would not have given my attention and would 'put as much distance between me and his "data" as possible'. I am not convinced of this though.
--Obviously anyone who reads around sees graphings like this at times which are quite different from someone elses work, usually differing by interpretation or modified assumptions. Either this or the data is highly simplified such as Humphreys has 'a bit of fluctuations, a bit of reversals, and a bit of the upsie-daisy and shabaam'.------------------

"JM: Aside from not going to the original sources, your graph also misrepresents the data. The y-axis is not in %, but in field strenght units."
--Yes, thank you, this was misrepresenting the data, though not intentionally. I should fix this [though I didn't label it as in percentages]."There is no zero line, Humphreys has taken the present field strength line and relabled it zero."
--Well Humphrey's didn't even give a numerical label of 0. Though your source did in field strength units. As well as the other 0 is a date."Humphreys cited exactly this source as the source for data in his graph. You should be careful what you defend when you don't understand it!"
--Of course I should be careful, yes. I just thought I would give my attempt to illustrate a comparison. I do not have the book so I am unable to do any local reading within these pages. Obviously there may be something I am missing as he cited his reference not as just this graph, but information on pages 101-106. You could just say that 'oh there's nothing to see there', though I think I would still obtain relatively the same amount of speculation as I had previously, possibly more.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

"Nope, TC. It's best to drop this until you've read through both original works. Humphreys is misleading and misrepresenting data as there is absolutely NO SIGN CHANGE (reversals) in the archeomagnetic data. I don't mind you trying to rationalize it away, but it's obvious you did not go to the original sources. As a budding young scientist, you might as well learn the ropes. Second hand data can be used to make a point (as I did), but my analysis was based on the original references."
--Yes yours may very well be a more superior approach of course, and this should be noted. Humphreys refersals though as he does not label or give very much explaining at all on his graphing, may be just his thoughts of his previous interpretation on the rest of the reversals as he interprets the rest of paleomagnetic data and then inserted fluctuations and then thought he would give a little curve there and there and whala. I admit, I cannot be too sure on everything here.------------------

"Most people could not see this as a coincidence. Especially since Humphreys actually cites the original data. He had to have been aware of the geometry of the data.Well, on this we can agree. His data is not quantitative, even though the original data was. However, you have to admit that the similarity of the graphs is uncanny."
--I can admit that the simmilarity is quite high, and it does in fact look as if it were a delibarate misrepresentation of the data, though I am just making sure that we realize that this may not be the case as I have cited it may be considerable to think of it in terms of its indefinite simplicity or something along that line.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

"If this went to court, as in a copyright case for song lyrics, the judge would send Humphreys to the cleaner."
--If I were representing him, yup, but if I were in such a scenario, I think I would want to get that source a bit more as well as talk to him in person. ------------------

"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.------------------

"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 pagesYears BP Dipole Moment
0-500 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 8.26Now, 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.------------------

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?)------------------

"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]

"Percipient, thank you for the answer. What you say it's what I thought until I read the book "Plate Tectonics" by Jon Erickson."
--Yes, Good book I would also recommend Marine Geology by Jon Erickson, that is if you have not yet read it. It was about my 2 or 3rd Geology related text, like Plate Tectonics it is clearly written and deals mostly with Marine hydrothermals and Sea-floor spreading.------------------