Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Come on Joe, Humphreys just drew a Corel Draw sketch to give us some sort of feeling that was in his head. And sure it may be based on that data in a sub-conscious way. He seems to have reverse timed it, shifted the horizontal axis and accelerated the reversals? But he really is just trying to show us what the creationist have in mind empirically. Do you have a diagram on the web somewhere of what the entire time sequence of reversals is from the mainstream POV?

---

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!CheersJoe Meert

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Come on Joe, Humphreys just drew a Corel Draw sketch to give us some sort of feeling that was in his head. And sure it may be based on that data in a sub-conscious way. He seems to have reverse timed it, shifted the horizontal axis and accelerated the reversals? But he really is just trying to show us what the creationist have in mind empirically. Do you have a diagram on the web somewhere of what the entire time sequence of reversals is from the mainstream POV?

---

It appears to me that Humphreys makes these serious mistakes in his diagram:

• Though there have been no reversals in at least the last 7000 years, Humphreys diagram nonetheless includes reversals. Only fluctuations have occurred in the last 7000 years.
  ​
• The flood model requires not the 4 reversals shown on Humphreys diagram, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000.
  ​
• He places the fluctuations thousands of years ago to make them coincide to the supposed flood, when in reality the fluctuations have occurred approximately since Christ.
  ​
• He shows the intensity decreasing since the Creationist date for creation, when in reality it has increased.

Humphreys diagram is a fancy of his imagination, is not based upon real data, and bears no resemblance to reality, yet his label says, "Magnetic field intensity at the earth's surface, from creation to now."Humphreys is doing worse than playing fast and loose with the data. This is simple misrepresentation. As a scientist you should deplore such behavior.--PercyPS - Lost that reply button again?

Percy, believe me when I say that this is the only point on which I will provide any support for TB. The time difference between the US, where most of the users appear to be based, and Australia means that lack of response may simply be due to a respondent indulging in some of the alternative activities in life, such as sleeping or working. For example, I am writing this at 8.45am Saturday.Nevertheless I look forward to TB providing the material to back up his previous bald assertions.

Hi wj!The "Lost that reply button" comment was just a hopefully gentle reminder to Tranquility Base to use the little "Reply" icon that's with the list of icons at the bottom of each message, instead of the big "Post Reply" button that appears at the top and bottom of the entire page. Since he tends not to quote any text, without the "This is a reply to" annotation that use of the "Reply" icon adds it's very hard to tell who he's replying to.In other words, he should take his time composing a reply. Whenever he has available time is fine.--Percy

--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]

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:

---

.
--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.

---

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!CheersJoe Meert

"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'.------------------

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.CheersJoe Meert

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

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.

"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]

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.

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