Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading

Having worked on a drilling rig, this is one question I had. I may be slow here but wouldn’t the field (north) always point down at some angle? Also, isn’t it possible that some local seafloor influences would be unknown and unaccounted for in a sample measurement? As we saw in the Paricutin analysis, some carefully chosen samples had gross disagreement with the known historic magnetic field. The others had more error than expected for a measurement of such fresh known history. (I know the Paricutin study is different from basement samples but the principles are similar). Are you saying that most of the seafloor magnetic striping measurements are not based on ground-truthing? This was my hunch. I have little data.I’m still searching for actual data and analysis - but it is difficult to find! Got some stuff the ideal data would include sample measurements and clearly defined topography.

Hey Percy, You are perceptive. I would only change that to ..the source of the field strength variation magnetometer measurements. I have proposed there is a connection between magnetic field strength variation and the very deep parallel and transverse crevices in the Atlantic seafloor. Here is the logic As water convects to the bottom of the crevice, there would be more deep cooling of magma around the crevice over long time periods. Therefore, more normal magnetization (positive fluctuation from reference average) would be expected near crevices than over other topography (negative fluctuation from reference average). You are Very perceptive Percy! I have wondered how much noise is present in the magnetometer measurement relative to a faint signal from remanent magnetized basalt almost a mile away. I don’t think that I have expressed that thought explicitly because I have no real basis for raising the issue. Just not sure what the sensitivity and accuracy of the instrumentation for the magnetometers are (probably varies among manufacturers).
However, I don’t want to pursue that thought here because it is likely that significant amounts of basalt magnetization can be reliably detected.I appreciate you being a sounding board for me...!Hydroplate Hippie

Joe, you raise some interesting points — especially in light of the apparent power of the alternative media today. Dan Rather would likely not be retiring if his 60 Minutes (Bush TNG) story had not been critiqued -only- by the established journalistic review forum. It is the power of the World Wide Web and the ability of disparate islands of knowledge, expertise, and interest that appears to wield a lot of power these days.Despite all of Wegener’s efforts to get his theory before the scientific community, most of the folks who reviewed his work were dead by the time Wegener’s moving plates proposal was finally acknowledged and accepted within the geological community.If Walt peddled the Hydroplate theory at a local Church around here, then I missed it. I didn’t find the Hydroplate theory at Church. I was searching biology references for my daughter on the web and stumbled across it by accident some time back.I spent a few hours studying the Hydroplate theory and was stunned to find (for the first time) rational explanations for several things I had pondered for many years (including Earth’s geomagnetic field). I spent a few weeks trying to prove the Hydroplate theory wrong found your web site exchanged some personal emails with you, and remain impressed with the Hydroplate theory — but that is a topic for another time. Wegener’s bold approach was fruitless until about 25 years after he was dead.I disagree that my post was misleading concerning Wegeners efforts. The results of Wegener’s efforts speak for themselves.You are correct to point out there were a few who supported Wegener’s work. There are also some geologists today who embrace alternative theories (including Hydroplate).I believe the author of the article below adheres to Earth contraction theory. Don’t know about his credibility but he may be expressing a valid criticism of the professional community. Can’t speak for Brown but he seems to have made some pretty bold offers for strictly scientific written debate and also for live classroom discussions via phone.Joe, if the Hydroplate theory has no scientific merit, then it will wither on the vine like the Earth Expansion theory. However, if the Hydroplate theory does have scientific merit, then it will grow and gain support over time. New data is coming at us every day.I consider myself a part of the scientific community and a peer review process - as informal as it is - in the world of website forums. The expertise within the Blogger community is staggering and responds quickly.The old formal peer review forum is relatively slow and can be inefficient/inadequate in today’s world, especially when entrenched in paradigms. I believe the formal scientific peer review process and the Plate Tectonics theory may somewhat diminish in relative status over time (as more data and observations are made available to the world wide community).Although informal web reviews have pitfalls and inadequacies, we only have to look to Rathergate to see how quick, thorough, and lethal the Blogger peer review process can be.This message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-28-2005 01:27 AM

Ned Ned Ned Of course I have an idea why it wouldn’t be Ned — it’s Ohms Law! Go back and read posts 144 and 145 on Page 10. This may also help you understand why the two are logically connected. I don’t know how to express it more clearly but I will try to flesh it out more for you in a subsequent response.

The problem Hippie is that you don't know enough of the history.There is good reason why Wegener's work was not accepted very widely unitll later. That is a result of having to have evidence for your theory.When the evidence started to come in then it was accepted in a very few years. I was at a talk of Tuzo Wilson's in the mid '60's introducing it out here. By then it was reasonably well accepted because there was evidence AND a mechanism.The general conservativeness of science is why we don't have total over turnings of theories anymore. We have refinement as Einstein refined Newton.When Walt manages to follow the same path and develops real evidence then maybe he will make some progress too.

My friend Edge... Edge, it has become painfully obvious that you are more interested in petty comments than in serious scientific debate.If you had simply taken the time to review the reference before responding, you would have noted — The RAS is the UK's leading professional body for astronomy & astrophysics, geophysics, solar and solar-terrestrial physics, and planetary sciences! Edge, you may have good intentions, but I sincerely suggest your method of debate is more appropriate at another website where quoting unreferenced sources, personal attacks, character assassination, etc. is the modus operandi... perhaps you should try Michael Moore | Substack.Edge - Please refrain from responding further unless you carefully read the posts, review the references, and have something of substance to add.Thank you in advance.
Hydroplate Hippie

My friend NosyNed Ned, no offense but next to Edge, your posts have added the least substance to this exchange.I hope you don’t get too sideways on us also with personal attacks and character assassination.The second quote you added does not invalidate or change the meaning of the quote I provided at all. My assertion is that any computer models that do not use realistic values to model the geodynamo cannot be expected to yield valid results: garbage in, garbage out.My assertion that realistic values were not used was questioned and I provided a solid reference that backs my assertion - not only about viscosity but other model input parameters as well — by orders of magnitude.It is irrelevant if a poorly constructed model happens to match (or is tailored to) expected results — the models are not built on realistic parameters!There is no meaning twisted or dishonesty at all in the quote I provided Ned. If you cannot add relevant substance to this exchange then I respectfully suggest you spend your time at Michael Moore | Substack along with my friend Edge.Thanks in advance!
Hydroplate Hippie

quote:

---

Ned, no offense but next to Edge, your posts have added the least substance to this exchange

---

Can't add what he doesn't have.

171 GengarGengar, as usual, you have contributed real information and substance! Thank you. Deviation implies measurements above or below the reference field. Do you know if the reference field is relatively stable in circumferential measurements the same distance on Earth’s surface relative to the North magnetic pole? I know this can be confusing since the geomagnetic axis differs from our rotational axis by about 11 degrees.Also, since there is a significant equatorial bulge from Earth’s rotation, I would expect some variation in the global geomagnetic field reference with respect to circumferential measurements at zero latitude (since the spin axis and the geomagnetic axis are different). I may be wrong - but this may be a clue to the location and nature of the geomagnetic field source.Also do you know how the global reference is determined? Is it an average of circumferential readings at a given distance from present true magnetic north is it an average of a given latitude or is it an average of some defined area? I agree. Aside from not knowing the precise history of seafloor samples over assumed millions of years, we also do not know the precise structure and consistency of the underlying basement and below.Since there appears to be a correlation of magnetic field strength variation to topography, it is reasonable to suspect that patterns may be sourcing magnetic interference well beneath the seafloor. I will share more on that in a response to Percy’s cool picture post.Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and experience Gengar!Do you drink Bud, Miller, Coors, or one of those exotic British beers? Hydroplate Hippie

173 PercyHey Man, I have not been successful locating much published useful data on actual samples. It would be an expensive and lengthy task to collect a statistically significant sample size. There has been some work but not as thorough as needed. That is why I suspect the conclusions of many concerning the validity of geomagnetic reversals have been largely based on surface or air measurements of geomagnetic field variation above and below a reference average value. Percy, I don’t believe I have used the term random fluctuations. If I did — it was unintentional and you make a good point. Rather, my posts have generally proposed the association of geomagnetic field fluctuation with seafloor topology such as deep crevices (created as the basement foundation buckles upward). The reason is water serves as a fast and efficient convection coolant in these crevices deep into the crust and will magnetize more basalt, etc, adjacent to the crevices over time.Consider the detailed study of the Reykjanes Ridge by (Agocs et al., 1992) — a proposed classic example of geomagnetic ridge symmetry due to pole reversals and seafloor spreading. The conclusion was the correlation coefficient to supposed reversals and seafloor spreading was very poor — 0.17 across the ridge and approaching up to .35 in some places. The correlation coefficient between bottom topography and magnetic anomalies was better at 0.42.Faults including bands of rock with different magnetic susceptibilities are likely a better explanation for patterns (Agocs et al., 1992; Choi et al., 1992). I have not seen these studies personally. If someone is more familiar with them, feel free to add or comment.This would be an excellent topic for further research. What would be very helpful is a topographical seafloor map with actual measurements overlaid. In addition to the above alternative, there are some other possible explanations for similar patterns globally:Most (if not all) of the geomagnetic reversal interpretations have been based upon data near mid-oceanic ridges purported to be spreading centers.The cool map you posted of the Juan de Fuca area (I believe) is an extension of the mid-oceanic ridge running up the US west coast from the southern tip of California. If you disagree, please review a large detailed map of the oceanic ridge path and notice the similarities in oceanic ridge topography running up the coast. It appears clear to me that the North American plate has moved westward and collided with the ridge there.Physical stress can also alter the magnetization of an area in small samples or broad patterns. This is known as magnetostriction - in which physical deformation of a magnetized material affects the magnetic field. I have additional thoughts along that line but not appropriate for this discussion.Percy, in the map you posted (post #173), it would be helpful to know what the colors represent. The straight tracking lines in the upper and lower left of the picture seem to indicate these measurements were made from a surface or airborne magnetometer. If this is the case, then the different colors can only represent a variation in field strength — and can only be inferred as pole reversals.Therefore, alternative explanations should be researched further, especially since no one seems to be able to explain how a geomagnetic pole reversal could possibly occur within the constraints of known physical laws (referring to my unanswered questions to you in post 144).Couple of thoughts in addition to those mentioned by Gengar in Post 276: I am not convinced that relatively weak remanent magnetism in a sample from an unknown primary orientation at the Curie point (somewhere at the theoretical spreading center) that has been likely reoriented and transported long distances over the supposed millions of years would be a reliable pole indicator — especially concerning the error found in fresh known Paricutin study referenced in post 145.Also, from a practical perspective, it is counter-intuitive (to me at least) to expect the slow molecular flow and chemical reactions within rock over millions of years could reliably retain the hysteresis to hold original magnetization after being under opposite forces during that time.Hydroplate Hippie

176 Gengar Good post again! I looked through the reference you gave.
Let me tell you.... that "2G Enterprises Superconducting Rock Magnetometer" machine sounds pretty cool!!!
Do you use that line to pick up women?!? (Hope I'm not over-reaching here) My searches agree that we know very little about actual seafloor basement and below. Those effects could be significant.Hydroplate Hippie

177 Joe Meert Hello Joe!
Thank you for the reference. I went to order the book online but $147 is steeper than I expected. I may order it anyway.
In the meantime, are there published papers that could be reviewed online?Perhaps you could take the concerns I raised (in post 144) about the scientific legitimacy of a proposed geodynamo and geomagnetic field reversals to your colleagues.For your convenience, I will repeat them here:1) There is no support from a classical thermodynamics perspective to believe the viscosity and the thermal diffusivity of iron, nickel, and other elements in the outer core at such extreme pressures could ever result in convection cells.2) Assuming for a moment my objection in (1) was not valid, there is no mechanism to generate the large electrical currents within the proposed geodynamo that could produce the geomagnetic field.3) There are no mechanisms to explain how assumed convection currents in an assumed geodynamo would control the path of the assumed large electrical currents (and the resulting electromagnetic field spatial dimensions). Since the outer core is thought to be mostly iron and nickel, the entire outer core would conduct electrical currents, largely irrespective of supposed convection cells. Even if the electrical resistance of the medium in a convection cell were slightly different than the rest of the medium, we would still see current division and current flow through the entire outer core medium — and more importantly through the relatively stable (no convection currents) inner core!4) Assuming for a moment my objections in (1), (2), and (3) were invalid, any convection current (edited to read "electrical current") generated in the outer (or inner) core would almost immediately be dissipated into heat (at near the speed of light) and would not contribute to any stable geomagnetic field at all - zero! So these assumed large electrical currents — that would be REQUIRED to be controlled by assumed convection cells if there were EVER ANY HOPE of a geomagnetic field reversal would have to be continually generated by a large electrical potential difference (voltage). There is no evidence of anything of that nature - and no mechanism to believe it is so (that I am aware of).Although number 1 is fairly well debated as documented in previous posts, I have not copied these objections from any other website. As far as I know, no one else has expressed numbers 2, 3, and 4. But surly these problems are recognized and have been discussed among geophysicists.Joe, please consult your colleagues, Neil Opdyke and Jim Channell, on these matters. If they have reasonable mechanisms, then I will gladly accept them and view geomagnetic field reversals and seafloor spreading as a more plausible interpretation. Otherwise, plate tectonics theory cannot rest squarely on the geomagnetic striping Hess called "Geopoetry" to be it's "saving mechanism" - as it was viewed forty years ago.Observations and conclusions with no possible mechanism or meaningful explanation are not based on sound scientific method.Without plausible mechanisms within the context of thermodynamics and physics to address these objections — proposed geomagnetic field reversals are only Ptolemic hunches. Ptolemy had plenty of supporting data - but no physical mechanism for his model of a geocentric solar system.Joe, I sincerely want to thank you for your time!Hydroplate HippieThis message has been edited by Hydroplate Hippie, 01-28-2005 09:23 AM

Hello Simple,
You and NosyNed may have some history together.
I have little tolerance for these petty posts. Your comment added nothing of value. So I must also refer you to join Edge and NosyNed at Michael Moore | Substack!Keep each other occupied please...Thank you in advance.
Hydroplate Hippie

JM: Not quite true, I mentioned several very influential and well-known Earth Scientists who found the drift hypothesis very attractive. The main point here is that Wegener behaved as a scientist and took his arguments to the geologic community. Walt Brown is known only to a few of us who battle the creationists. In contrast, Wegener and his ideas were known to nearly all geologists of his time. JM: Name two well-known geologists who embrace the hydroplate hypothesis (it cannot rightly be called a theory). JM: In 1974 plate tectonics was still in its infancy. You can find many similar criticisms early on. I am always dubious when someone trots out quote snippets. Georef gives the sources for some of your quotes, but they are either in difficult to obtain journals or books. The L&B reference is not given in GEOREF and Saull believes that the earth is expanding. Nevertheless, all of these folks (with perhaps the exception of L&B) took their arguments before the geologic community something Walt refuses to do. I think you need to get out a little more often because a number of proposals have been featured in the recent literature that explain continental motion via mechanisms other than plate tectonics. Interestingly, there is not a single reference to Walt's work. You should tell Walt, that Spring is here and it's time to plant. JM: In order to 'wither on the vine', it must be planted. Hydroplate is invisible to mainstream geology because Walt refuses to take his arguments before the geologic community. Have you asked Walt why he won't submit or present his work to geologists via the normal venues? Walt's ideas are completely grounded in the Noachian flood myth. He started with his interpretation of the bible and then force fit his biblical interpretation into hydroplates. JM: It's how science gets done. Online journals still undergo peer-review. Paradigms change because of the process of peer-review and critical self-reflection. Nearly every one of the authors you cited above took their arguments to the scientific community. Walt will not change geology hiding his 'lamp' under a bushel.CheersJoe MeertThis message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-28-2005 09:37 AM

The U of A had a pretty decent library 35 years ago, and likely still does. And they'll have interlibrary loan. It's right there on the hill....