Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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:

​

(image omitted)

​

--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.

---

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.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.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.

---

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.

quote:

---

--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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

---

If this went to court, as in a copyright case for song lyrics, the judge would send Humphreys to the cleaner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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. 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.

---

I guess the problem here is that scientists take this a little more seriously than the layman. Try to think of it as intellectual theft for the purpose of advancing one's own agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Joe, I'm probably asking you to repeat something, but I'd like to know more about subduction that doesn't result from plate collisions. One specific question, is there a contemporary example of this somewhere in the world?

​

Andor, follow Joe on this. He knows much more than me on this topic.

​

--Percy

---

Actually, most oceanic plates are trying to sink. That's why the cooler, older parts of it are usually deeper. In a way, subduction begins at the divergent boundary. I think it is hard to reverse direction on a plate because of this. Think of it as the topography of the lithosphere/asthenosphere contact. Which way is the gradient?However, the plarity of a subduction zone can reverse and we see this several times/places in the geological record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
What does it mean for the polarity of a subduction zone to reverse, and what is the geological evidence for such events. Thanks!

​

--Percy

---

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention that polarity reversals usually can only happen in ocean to ocean collisions such as in the Marianas arc. It means that the overiding plate can switch to the subducting plate. The evidence for this is in the fabric and distribution of rock types. This is probably just trivia as far as the evolution connection is concerned, but it shows the complexity of these systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
About underplating, in general is this a significant contributor to plate thickness?

---

It is significant, though I do not remember any numbers. In my own mind, part of the significance is that it slowly increases the gradient of the lithospher/asthenosphere contact. To me, pushing and pulling don't work and this is the only way to get significant plate velocities. Body centered forces, like gravity. Think of it as standing on a treadmill that isn't moving and slowly increasing the gradient. What happens?

quote:

---

Does deplating (you can tell from the terminology that I'm a professional geologist ) also occur? In fact, does it sometimes occur that the lithosphere wears very thin or wears away completely?

---

The only place I can see this is at a hot spot where temperatures effectively thin the lithosphere. Unless you are talking about scraping off the supracrustal sediments and volcanics at the subduction zone.

quote:

---

Underplating isn't in the site's geology glossary. Can someone provide a laymen's level definition that I could add? And for it's opposite if there is such a term? Thanks!

---

Joe probably can better define it, but I would call it the thickening of the lithosphere due to cooling of the crust and mantle as the slab moves away from the ridge where it formed. In a way, the addition of sediments also adds to the overal thickness of the lithosphere.