|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then you would be intuitively wrong. We see as many tsuanmis as we see because that's how many there are. Not all earthquakes, and not all earthquakes at subduction zones, produce tsunamis. And it isn't always subduction, either. In the case of Krakatau, it was the collapse of a caldera. Same part of the world. Similar death toll. I need a beer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I believe Jazzns reference to evidences for plate motion is in the context of seafloor spreading. How does hydroplate geodynamics account for this if seafloor spreading, or atleast that plate divergence is not supposed to have occured to any significance? I addressed this in a post earlier in this thread--how does the hydoplate theory explain large scale geophysical features of the seafloor like hydrothermal distribution, lithospheric thickness, and bathymetry? The typical patterns in these geophysical seafloor characteristics are as functions of distance from plate divergent boundaries. Furthermore, these characteristics have been modeled convincingly within mainstream PT theory. --How are these observations explained under your paradigm of hydroplate geodynamics without seafloor spreading? --The original topic of this thread was largely in reference to the changing frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time seen in the GPTS data. This data is has not been invented, but has been uncovered through detailed geophysical analysis. While each successive reversal is relatively random, the pattern of the changing frequency is observed: I am interested in hearing your explanation of this data. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2005 23:44 AM "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I do recall looking at 3D topographic maps with geomagnetic anomalies. I don't recall there being any direct relation between bathymetry and geomagnetic intensity. However there is indirect relation in that the general process of seafloor spreading is accompanied by isolated events of extrusive volcanism which not only may imprint an altered geomagnetic signature on the seafloor but locally add to lithospheric thickness thereby effecting isostatic balance, hence bathymetric anomalies. I have a membership and subscribe to several AGU journals, maybe I can dig up something. At any rate, I really don't think you will find what you are supposing. Of course.. I don't really know exactly what you are implying if it is not that geomagnetic anomalies are related to variations in bathymetry, so if you could address this directly I would appreciate it. -Chris Grose "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hydroplate Hippie writes: Admin Director writes: The responsibility for enforcing the guidelines and noting violations lies soley with moderators. Percy, are you are implying that members are prohibited from noting particularly poor debate techniques such as attacking the person — not the problem? If an individual persists in mindless attacks and wasting everyone’s time, then it seems appropriate to refer them to a site where those tactics are in vogue and expected (Michael Moore | Substack). Prohibited from noting possible guideline violations? No, of course not. But on the other hand, moderators do not want to see it used as a rhetorical device to dismiss valid arguments. Members should not set themselves up as judge and jury. If you feel you're the victim of a guidelines violation, seek moderator assistance. One guidelines violation does not justify another guidelines violation in response. If you feel someone's response is violating the Forum Guidelines, then either don't respond or ask for moderator help. Responding in kind will get you in trouble.
Removed extraneous comment. --Admin This message has been edited by Admin, 02-17-2005 15:38 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hydroplate Hippie Inactive Member |
213 Crashfrog
JonF writes: Lack of a mechnanism does not trump evidence. Crashfrog writes: If we observe evidence of magnetic pole reversals, and it conflicts with our understanding of the laws of physics, then it is our understanding of the laws that must be in error, not our observations. WOW, THAT’S AWESOME! You guys have just validated in one sentence what it has taken me many posts to detail. Plate Tectonics paradigm (based on supposed seafloor spreading as interpreted by inferred geomagnetic reversals) triumphs over the laws of physics (or at least our understanding of the laws of physics)! I've never heard anyone in any other scientific discipline hold forth such wisdom (and I've been around a while). The laws of fundamental physics are the most solid and reliable laws known in the scientific realm. And most would agree the laws of fundamental physics are very predictable and very well understood. To assert that one’s inferred causation assigned to evidence (worldview) triumphs over physical law is not an enviable position to claim with respect to the scientific method. This discussion has fully served its purpose unless someone can answer the points raised in post 192 and hopefully ....... rescue the laws of physics! I've enjoyed the visit here and I have invested a considerable amount of time. Now I'm returning to spend more time with my family and my other obligations. Gengar - email me if you are ever in the area. I owe you some ale! It's been real. Keep learning and always question everything... because sometimes... We don't know what we don't "know"! Supposing is good but finding out is better. (Mark Twain) Best to you all,Hydroplate Hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Hydroplate Hippie,
I'm pretty sure that when Crash says "then it is our understanding of the laws that must be in error" that it's an indirect reference not to fundamental physical laws but to your deductions about their implications within the earth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: About a hundred years ago, Michaelson and Morley did a series of experiments, the results of which violated the then-known laws of physics. But observations are observations, and data cannot simply be dismissed without explanation. What happened was that Einstein eventually realized that the "laws of fundamental physics" needed to to be revised. The laws of physics are not absolute laws. They are merely descriptions of how we have observed nature behave, and are subject to change if new observations warrant it. But it is not always necessary to make a change in the fundamental laws of physics to accomodate new observations. Sometimes new phenomenon are discovered that explains the observations within the old laws. An example, Lord Kelvin used the known temperature-vs-depth data of his time with the known laws of thermodynamics to calcate an age of the earth that was, I believe, only a few hundreds of thousand of years, or maybe a few million years old -- far too young according to geology. The discovery of radioactivity resolved this problem -- by adding a new heat source Kelvin's data, thermodynamics, and geology could be resolved. Observation always trumps theory. Period. To say otherwise indicates a profound misunderstanding of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I believe this estimate was something around 65 My, whereas the accepted age of the earth/solar system is derived from radioisotopic dating of (chondratic?) meteorites--4.5 Gy, a little under 2 orders of magnitude difference. Nevertheless, your point is valid, and I agree with your conclusions. "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I believe this estimate was something around 65 My 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024