|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You know, for a 'Phded' scientist, you sure play fast and loose with information. This is almost irresponsible on your part trying to change the meaning of Anderson's words. His point is that the plates drive convection rather than convection driving the plates. Why don't you take some time to learn about a subject before posting misinformation on it. I suggest you read what Anderson is really talking about here:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~dla/occam's_razor_simplicity_final_draft.pdf Get your facts straight! Geologists disagree on many things, a mobile outer layer does not seem to be one of them. Interestingly, what Anderson is arguing most vehemently against is what Baumgardner is arguing for. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Look at your first post. Anyone not familiar with Anderson's work might easily assume that he is arguing against plate tectonics. He most certainly is not. What he is arguing about is whether or not convection drives the plates or if the plates drive convection. Your quote was irresponsible in that your provided only a snippet intended to convey an alternative meaning. For someone who claims to be a "Phded' scientist 'working in the mainstream' you sure as hell don't seem to know how it works. There is disagreement in science, but it is not about whether a Noachian global flood has occurred. That issue was long ago settled. Take some time when you post and realize that not everyone on here will know the full context of a particular scientist's view! To do otherwise is playing fast and loose. By the way, Anderson's ideas are not new. Many scientists have written about and know that there is a feedback between the lithosphere and the mantle. Many of us see it as a 2-way street. Plates change convection patterns and those changes result in plate reorganization. Anderson is saying this as well. I am not sure exactly what you think is so damning of modern geology in Anderson's article. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]I'm not familiar with Anderson's work, but is it really true that he has "his own new theory" of continental drift, as TB claims in the first paragraph of post 1. The Anderson quote is pretty short, so there's little context, but he appears to be commenting on the lack of success in developing a mathematical model for plate tectonics. Is that right, Joe? If so, then this simply seems analogous to weather. We have observational evidence for weather to the point where we can characterize it's behavior in great detail, but it is so complicated that we cannot develop mathematical models that predict weather more than a few days out. I imagine the same difficulties exist for mantle convection currents and plate tectonics. We have tons of data on the motion of continents over time, so much so that you can watch animated movies showing the dance of the continents from Gondawanaland to today, but we have yet to develop a successful mathematical model replicating that behavior over a billion years.[/QUOTE] JM: That is correct! One of the issues that Anderson discusses in his article is the problem with describing a plate driving mechanism that explains all the observations. Scientists advocate mantle plumes, true polar wander and other mechanisms to enhance the limiting 'power' of mantle convection in mathematical models (myself included!). However, Anderson supposes that plates drive the convection patterns in the upper mantle and those changes result in changes in plate motion patterns in a dynamic feedback. Anderson HATES plumes, but some of the recent geodynamic models suggest that plumes are a natural consequence of surface plate organization. Once again, it is the lithosphere causing the plumes, which in turn, feedback to help move the plates. I have an article under review on this topic that you can download here (it's kind of big so phone dialups may take a while to download). It is called 'The HOG hypothesis' where HOG= Hand 'o God. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You've got a number of problems with such an assertion. The data and analysis you claim I have not provided with respect to this will now be given to you again:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htmhttp://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm Please note that these links are my own analysis and therefore I do present my own data and analysis contrary to your previous assertion. You have not provided any data to support 'your model'. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]For now let me just add that your comments on your web page about 'unrealistic viscosities' seems to be important to your argument. Is it unrealistic becasue you wont allow for accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating or is it intrinsically unrealistic?[/QUOTE] JM: The reason is that it is intrinsically unrealistic. You know those models Anderson is ragging on? This is what Baumgardner does! However, the viscosity of the mantle is totally irrelevant to my argument on that page. I was merely pointing out that this is another issue that Baumgardner does not fully address. By the way, Baumgardner's model (if you look closely) releases more than enough heat to boil away the oceans (by his own calculation!). He did not discuss this much because he was more worried about the interior of the earth, but the amount of heat released would easily cook Noah. A friend of mine notes the following:
quote: Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Well, of those only Snelling is a geologist so I would not really expect Walker or Humphreys (you'd think friends would spell his name right?) to be able to do much in the way of commenting. Baumgardner is one of those creationists who is willing to write on both sides of the fence (like Woodmorappe/Peczkis). His mainstream articles are old earth. I find such a behavior very strange in a scientist. I would never agree to co-author a paper where the conclusions were so diametrically opposed to my stated public religious viewpoint. Apparently, this is not a big deal to people like Baumgardner, Woodmorappe (or Snelling). Just call me one of those atheists with weird morals about scientific integrity His: and the real thing: Notice carefully what Humphrey's did! That sort of misuse troubles me as a scientist. Apparently, it is standard OP for creationists.Cheers Joe Meert [Edited to fix width of images, click on images to see full-size versions. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-17-2002] [This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Not quite true. Notice the reference that Humphreys gives? It is precisely in those pages that we find the graph I posted. None of the other data in those pages comes close to producing what Humphreys drew. Furthermore, the reversals in Humphreys graph are NOWHERE contained in the archeomagnetic record!! Notice the graph I supplied. There is no time within the last 10000 years where the mean dipole changes sign (reversal). This is just plain wrong and very misleading on the part of Humphreys. Go to the source cited by Humphreys and see for yourself. I did not make this up! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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. There is no zero line, Humphreys has taken the present field strength line and relabled it zero. 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! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
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.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Indeed. Think of it as sticking a cold finger down into the mantle. Mantle circulation will change as subduction proceeds. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: That's a good question. As far as I know, the Loiusade Plateau (solomon islands) is one place where subduction seems incipient. As edge points out subduction polarity reversal is common in the South Pacific. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024