Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth proofs, old earth attempts


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#81 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 02:33 PM

PS. A geologist in our local creation group knows one of the scientists who measured the magnetism of rocks on the ocean floor, and they said there really were no reversals, just weaker vs stronger polarity. Maybe someone can elaborate on this. Geology is my least favorite topic in the origins debate, and it will show if I try to post too much on the subject. :)

View Post


Stilla topic of debate in science, however try this LINK

#82 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 28 June 2005 - 11:13 PM

"I'm not up in it at the moment either, but I think Baumgartner's model works much better than Oard's with the magnetic reversal's on the ocean floor and continental spreading."

Does anyone have any comments on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory?

#83 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:44 AM

Speaking of flips. I bet no one has even considered what this may do to the moons orbit, the earth's tilt, and the earth's orbit around the sun. For the flip to take place, the gravity of the earth would have to change during the process. If it becomes stronger, it would pull the moon closer. Weaker, would make it go further into space.

Then you have the earth's mantle. It is polarized, and would have to shift as the flip took place. Now, can you imagine what would happen if the earth's mantle did a complete flip as well? I think every volcano would errupt big time. The earth's crust may even be destroyed. And we would all be killed. But none of this is ever discussed, or contemplated. Why? I believe this sillyness is a science diversion to keep people discussing what can't happen, but act like it did.

#84 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 02:33 PM

Does anyone have any comments on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory?

View Post


see page 4 i where I have made numerous objections, to hydroplate dynamics, perhaps you would care to address them.

#85 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 02:42 PM

Speaking of flips. I bet no one has even considered what this may do to the moons orbit, the earth's tilt, and the earth's obit around the sun. For the flip to take place, the gravity of the earth would have to change during the process. If it becomes stronger, it would pull the moon closer. Weaker, would make it go further into space.

Then you have the earth's mantle. It is polarized, and would have to shift as the flip took place. Now, can you imagine what would happen if the earth's mantle did a complete flip as well? I think every volcano would errupt big time. The earth's crust may even be destroyed. And we would all be killed. But none of this is ever discussed, or contemplated. Why? I believe this sillyness is a science diversion to keep people discussing what can't happen, but act like it did.

View Post


Gravity is dependant upon Mass, nothing else.


If the magnetic field reversed I would expect minimal changes (if any) to the moon and it’s orbit. By comparison the magnetic field is extremely weak compared to the moving mass that is the Earth/Moon, that a serious amount of inertia to overcome. Same goes for an increasing or decreasing magnetic strength.

Effects I would expect to see, changes in solar partials reaching the earth, and disruptions in the ionosphere.

No volcanic eruptions, local events are far more important – crust weakness/movement, depth of magma, etc

#86 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 14 July 2005 - 10:52 PM

We still can't agree on what CAUSES the magnetic field, why would anyone think it could "reverse"?

#87 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2005 - 01:48 PM

We still can't agree on what CAUSES the magnetic field, why would anyone think it could "reverse"?

View Post


Magnetic alignment in volcanic rock (takes up the alignment it experience when it solidifies). Magnetic reversal is the theory that best explains that evidence. There may be other theories around but I am not aware of them.

P.S. do you think it necessary to know the underlying cause before you can formulate a theory, if so why?

#88 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 17 July 2005 - 03:06 PM

We don't even understand what causes our magnetic field. If you can't understand the magnetic field, how could you therefore come to the conclusion that it could reverse? I've heard both sides of this, and I still haven't come to a conclusion yet. h*vind says it was a mistake because they measure the magnetic intensity of the rocks and drew a sine wave, they then drew a line for average intensity and called everything below average reversed. This site also has another explanation which I don't understand, but maybe somebody will!

http://www.answersin...i2/magnetic.asp

#89 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2005 - 07:36 PM

We don't even understand what causes our magnetic field. If you can't understand the magnetic field, how could you therefore come to the conclusion that it could reverse? I've heard both sides of this, and I still haven't come to a conclusion yet. h*vind says it was a mistake because they measure the magnetic intensity of the rocks and drew a sine wave, they then drew a line for average intensity and called everything below average reversed. This site also has another explanation which I don't understand, but maybe somebody will!

http://www.answersin...i2/magnetic.asp

View Post


From the AIG article

In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.


A ridiculous statement, no one suggests that the magnetic field would have started from such a strength and that magnetic decay is exponential, It would change like a sinusoidal wave function not a straight line.

See LINK

extract from the above link
From these data Barnes has determined that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially. Throughout his book, whenever he mentions this exponential decay, he points the reader to section II-D, page 36 to view the justification. On that page of his book, he justifies the exponential decay conclusion as follows, the emphasis is mine. B0, as referred to by Barnes, is the equatorial magnetic field strength, which is included in his tables, but omitted from mine.

"When values of the magnetic moment, M, in table 1 are plotted against time, t, on semi-log coordinate paper, the points lie approximately on a straight line, as one would expect for an exponential decay of the Earth's magnetic moment. This is also true, of course, for a plot of B0 against t. We therefore assume that the decay is exponential and write ... "
This, of course, is no justification at all. Barnes simply assumed that the decay was exponential. However, later in the book, at the beginning of section IV, page 52, Barnes makes a slightly more heroic attempt to justify the exponential decay theory as follows:

"All data were processed on a CDC3100 electronic computer. A least square exponential fit was employed to evaluate the time constant. As a separate check it was noted that the variability was smaller for this exponential fit than for a straight line fit, as one would expect from the exponential solutions obtained from Maxwell's equations."
In these two passages we see the full and entire text of the justification for deriving an exponential decay from the tabulated data. Anyone reading this who has had experience with numerical approximations, data curve fitting, and etc. should be able to recognize at once that the argument is very poor.



#90 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2005 - 02:24 AM

A ridiculous statement, no one suggests that the magnetic field would have started from such a strength and that magnetic decay is exponential, It would change like a sinusoidal wave function not a straight line.


I think your mixing up ideas. Barnes assumed an exponential decay rate, and that given that decay rate, that the earth's magnetic field could only be so old.

The assumption of an exponential decay rate is a natural one, and makes sense from a physics standpoint. Assuming and inductive resistive circuit, the natural equation for the decay would be I = I_0*e-(t/tau).

That quote does nothing to say why that is not a good basis to work from, and totally misses the point.

Terry

#91 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 July 2005 - 01:51 PM

I think your mixing up ideas.  Barnes assumed an exponential decay rate, and that given that decay rate, that the earth's magnetic field could only be so old.

The assumption of an exponential decay rate is a natural one, and makes sense from a physics standpoint.  Assuming and inductive resistive circuit, the natural equation for the decay would be I = I_0*e-(t/tau).

That quote does nothing to say why that is not a good basis to work from, and totally misses the point.

Terry

View Post


Barnes has selected points from the data early 1800’s (which would be less accurate with methods used today) to make the equation fit, in addition it is not consistent with the decay rates he proposes for his own model, see the first diagram from the AIG link. e.g. If I were to pick a small section of data along anyone of those curves and then choose an inappropriate formula I too could make the data predict some ridiculous amount.

better explained from this link

Even without a plot, just by looking at the data tabulated above, the reader should be able to see that the moment values since 1935 appear essentially flat around a value of about 8.047 +/- 0.029, while the data prior to 1935 show a clear downward trend. One could easily argue that two straight lines fit the data better than one, and even better than one exponential (this is an exercise that I have not undertaken, but the motivated reader is welcome to see if my intuition is trustworthy). That fact alone will easily explain why a single exponential will fit the data better than a single straight line, as the slight curve of the exponential can better approximate the kink in the data. These considerations make it extremely difficult to use the data alone as an a-priori justification for any particular curve fit over another. In fact, one could over interpret the data even to the extent of claiming that the field was in decay until about 1935, when it then stopped decaying.



#92 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2005 - 03:46 PM

Barnes has selected points from the data early 1800’s (which would be less accurate with methods used today) to make the equation fit, in addition it is not consistent with the decay rates he proposes for his own model, see the first diagram from the AIG link.  e.g. If I were to pick a small section of data along anyone of those curves and then choose an inappropriate formula I too could make the data predict some ridiculous amount.


Well, short of taking the time to plot the data myself, its worth noting one point:

* There was 100 years prioir to 1935, and only 30 years after in the data set. No wonder the data after 1935 looks relatively unchanged compared to the 100 years prior.......

This article falls completely apart on statements like this:

Indeed, it is my position that Humphreys' theory cannot be confirmed, since it predicts at once every possible observed field, and is therefore useless for predicting anything.


That simply is not true.

Terry

#93 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 July 2005 - 07:41 PM

Well, short of taking the time to plot the data myself, its worth noting one point:

* There was 100 years prioir to 1935, and only 30 years after in the data set.  No wonder the data after 1935 looks relatively unchanged compared to the 100 years prior.......

View Post



the data
Year....mag field
1835 8.558
1845 8.488
1880 8.363
1880 8.336
1885 8.347
1885 8.375
1905 8.291
1915 8.225
1922 8.165
1925 8.149
1935 8.088
1942.5 8.009
1945 8.065
1945 8.010
1945 8.066
1945 8.090
1955 8.035
1955 8.067
1958.5 8.038
1959 8.086
1960 8.053
1960 8.037
1960 8.025
1965 8.013
1965 8.017

now can you tell me what part of the curve that is from?

This article falls completely apart on statements like this:
That simply is not true.

Terry

View Post


What makes it fall apart the opinion appears to be backed up with sound math.

It appears to me that Humphries is using two variables so that a pre conceived answer can be obtained. As explained in the link, beginning with

“The physics of Humphreys' theory, such as it is, can be represented by a single equation” ………….. concluding with “However, because k is a free parameter in the equation for Mc, so is Mc a free parameter in the equation above for T. This means that Humphreys could not compute a value of T from his theory that was not very close to his 'measured' value, since he can always find a suitable arbitrary value for Mc”.



#94 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2005 - 02:45 AM

now can you tell me what part of the curve that is from?


I don't understand your quesiton.

What makes it fall apart the opinion appears to be backed up with sound math.
It appears to me that Humphries is using two variables so that a pre conceived answer can be obtained. As explained in the link, beginning with


Humphries equation has an upper bound based on the mass of the planet, and variable that takes on the values of 0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 based on potential molecule orientations.

If you think that "predicts at once every possible observed field "then you are mathematically challanged, and I can't help you.

Instead of the petty complaints, why don't you show us where the dynamo theory works better than Humphreys' model at predicting the field strengths of other planets?

Terry

#95 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2005 - 02:22 PM

I don't understand your quesiton.

View Post


If you have a set of data points and graph them, then it seems reasonable to me that one could put a case forward that the data set is a small sample of a: e.g. a sine wave, hyperbola, tan function, etc. Can you tell what part of the curve and what curve function it really is, especially if you are relying on averaged data with some margin of error?

Humphries equation has an upper bound based on the mass of the planet, and variable that takes on the values of 0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 based on potential molecule orientations.

View Post


It worse than that, One of Humphries assumptions is a young earth (represented as ‘t’) as an input to his equations, that IMO is circular since one is trying to predict the age of the earth in the first place.


If you think that "predicts at once every possible observed field "then you are mathematically challanged, and I can't help you.


Instead of the petty complaints, why don't you show us where the dynamo theory works better than Humphreys' model at predicting the field strengths of other planets?

Terry

View Post



Well since you are lettered mathematically, could you please critique the talk origins reply, where the equations are dissected (The lack of predictive quality is also explained in the link) and comment upon the false (if any) reasoning.

I’m sure I’m not that mathematically challenged, that I could not follow a simplified explanation.

#96 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2005 - 04:32 PM

Well since you are lettered mathematically, could you please critique the talk origins reply, where the equations are dissected (The lack of predictive quality is also explained in the link) and comment upon the false (if any) reasoning. 


Ok, one more time..... B)

However, because k is a free parameter in the equation for Mc, so is Mc a free parameter in the equation above for T. This means that Humphreys could not compute a value of T from his theory that was not very close to his 'measured' value, since he can always find a suitable arbitrary value for Mc.


Mc = k (0.9425) m, k can be 0,1/4,1/2,3/4 1. That means at most Mc = 0.9425 times the mass of the planet. That means that even though k can change, its not "free" to make Mc anything Humphreys' wants. To suggest so, especially after placing the equations in the same article, is plain silly.

Again, where is the evidence about the dynamo theory, and its ability to explain anything? All Thompson does is assert that the scientific communitiy believes its so, so it must be. Gee, that sounds familiar....... :o

Mercury's magnetism is a problem for dynamo theorists:

the very existence of the field is puzzling. If Mercury can maintain a steady dipole field, the earth, which rotates 59 times as fast and has a core twice as large, should be able to sustain more complicated fields.

If Neptune does have a field, it would make some difficulties for the dynamo theorists, because its core is supposed to be solid. A solid conductive core is no hindrance to the creationist theory, but it is to the dynamo theory.


Humphreys' Good Mag Field Paper

Terry

#97 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2005 - 07:35 PM

That means that even though k can change, its not "free" to make Mc anything Humphreys' wants.

View Post


Mc is the magnetic strength at creation. Determined by k (and some constants) k is a fraction of those constants. Then setting for k is 0.25 (for reasons I’m no to clear about) you gthen get a result for Mc. I think we can agree on this yes?

Solving for T=t/In(Mc/M)

t is the time since creation, and Mc (which is a function of k between 0-1 etc).

We have a two fold problem of:
a. setting up the equation with expected results (t), and then,
b. compounding that by including k at 0.25. Is there any justification to select 0.25? I suspect it make the numbers fit, thus the comment about it being a free parameter.

#98 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2005 - 08:00 PM

We have a two fold problem of:
a. setting up the equation with expected results (t), and then,
b. compounding that by including k at 0.25.  Is there any justification to select 0.25? I suspect it make the numbers fit, thus the comment about it being a free parameter.


Complaint "a" is not valid. You cannot plug anything you want in for "t". If the parameter is to far off, then you won't get a reasonable value for the conductance of the earth, or whatever planet/body your working with.

Complaint "b" is also not valid. Its a natural function of the physics on which the theory is based. You can read about it in the link in the last post.

This all works out amazingly well, including the inner planets, and even the moon.

Terry

#99 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 July 2005 - 02:43 PM

Complaint "a" is not valid.  You cannot plug anything you want in for "t".  If the parameter is to far off, then you won't get a reasonable value for the conductance of the earth, or whatever planet/body your working with.

Complaint "b" is also not valid.  Its a natural function of the physics on which the theory is based.  You can read about it in the link in the last post.

This all works out amazingly well, including the inner planets, and even the moon. 

Terry

View Post


well this will take some reading sinse you ahve not realy explained anything, but i did find this gem

If we use our arbitrary value of k = 0.25 in equation (1) to calculate Jupiter's magnetic moment at creation, we get a value less than this. The minimum alignment fraction which will give the present field is 0.87. But since the field must have decayed at least somewhat since creation, the fraction must have been greater. If we use the maximum alignment fraction, k = 1.0, then we get a maximum value for Jupiter's magnetic moment at creation:


Now tell me how this is not just making up a figure (k) to make the result fit! what is this 'natural function' you refer too, that allows k to change like this?

#100 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2005 - 03:29 PM

Now tell me how this is not just making up a figure (k) to make the result fit!  what is this 'natural function' you refer too, that allows k to change like this?


Please,.................., k can only take on values between 0 and 1. It cannot be made any value so that things work out. If it could be any number, e.g. any number greater than 0, then that would be the case, but it cannot, so its a silly argument.

Keep reading.....

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users