Jump to content


Magnetic Field Reversal Possible?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2005 - 10:54 PM

Science claims that magnetic field reversal have happened several times in the past, and that we are due for one in the near future. Actually, the evidence of this is not very solid. Because this is only assumed because of some megnetic polarized rocks on the ocean floor that were found suppostly, pointing in two directions. There are several factors that can cause this besides polar flips. But the funny thing I see is that science is unwilling to look at the big picture of what would take place if this polar flip actually happened.

1) It's a known fact that our magnetic field protects our planet from the solar wind of the sun. How harmful is the solar wind? If our magnetic field did not extend as far as it does into space, to deflect the solar wind. Our atmosphere would be totally stripped away. A polar flip of magnetic fields would require a fluctuation in this field as they flip. And since a magnet (our earth) can't basically become stronger in it's field, to accomplish this, it would become weaker.

2) The inner core of the earth is molten, movable, and magnetized. So if the pole flips, all this molten inner core would have to flip with it. Stirring up the earth's core in this manner would bring the hottest molten lava close to our suface. Would anyone like to guess what a 90 degree turn in the earth's inner core would do to it's crust?

3) Bringing the hottest part of the earth's core closer to the earth's crust would cause several more problems. The crust itself would become heated and weakened by this heat. The water that is below the surface would become steam and would have to escape into our atmosphere. Volcanos would errupt without stopping, and several new ones would form.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest jokes I have ever seen science come up with. I have yet to see one page that even addresses the things I have brought up. Why won't they talk about it? Because they know people would figure it out, and it's only a matter of time before someone blows this right out of the water.

Does anyone think we can actually survive a polar flip? And if so, can you explain how it would go as smoothly as a day of fishing would go?

Besides, there is alot more I could have added to this, I just hit on the main points. And by the way, does anyone know how all this would affect the orbit or our moon? I hear we can't live without that thing.

#2 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2005 - 08:49 AM

I think your views on the causes and dangers of a flip are a bit at odds with the current views of the scientific community. Although, it might become advisable in a few hundred years to stay inside during solar storms, I think the movie "The Core" played up the disaster scenario a bit too much.
Also, the sun flips its polarity about every 11 years - and the sun is 330,000 times heavier than the earth. So we know this kind of thing happens in our solar system.

http://www.geomag.bg.../reversals.html
The source of the magnetic field is the iron-rich liquid outer core of the Earth. This liquid moves in complex ways as a result of the convection of the heat deep within the core and of the rotation of the planet. The motion of the core fluid is continuous and never stops, even during a reversal. It can only stop when the energy source fails. Heat is produced at least partly because of the solidification of the liquid core onto the solid inner core that sits at the centre of the Earth. This process has operated continuously over billions of years. At the top of the liquid core, some 3000 km beneath our feet and below the rocky mantle, the fluid may travel at horizontal speeds of tens of kilometres per year. The motion of this metal fluid across existing magnetic field lines of force produces electrical currents and these, in turn, generate more magnetic field. This is a process known as advection.

http://www.newscient...le.ns?id=dn4985
Solar wind to shield Earth during pole flip

Hollywood now has one less disaster scenario to worry about. The Earth, it seems, will be safe when its magnetic field falters during the next reversal of its magnetic poles.

A new model of the way the Earth interacts with the solar wind indicates that a replacement field will form in the upper atmosphere during the switch.

Scientists had previously thought that the planet would be left without a protective shield to stop lethal radiation from space reaching the surface.

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 July 2005 - 01:47 PM

And by the way, does anyone know how all this would affect the orbit or our moon? I hear we can't live without that thing.

View Post


Compared to the gravity of the Earth and Moon, the magnetic field is relatively weak. Just look at the situation on earth, you need to finely balance a light compass needle to allow it to spin freely, if it were open to the elements a gust of wind will deflect it. Plus like many phenomena the strength of the field diminishes by the square of the distance, so a magnet of strength X is only ¼ as powerful as you double the distance. I don’t know the figures are but I would suspect there would be some distance out from the earth where a traditional compass stops detecting the earth’s field.

Do you mean what would happen if the moon broke free of the earth and drifted completely away?
I hear we can't live without that thing.

View Post



#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2005 - 08:19 PM

I think your views on the causes and dangers of a flip are a bit at odds with the current views of the scientific community. Although, it might become advisable in a few hundred years to stay inside during solar storms,  I think the movie "The Core" played up the disaster scenario a bit too much.
   Also, the sun flips its polarity about every 11 years - and the sun is 330,000 times heavier than the earth. So we know this kind of thing happens in our solar system.

http://www.geomag.bg.../reversals.html
The source of the magnetic field is the iron-rich liquid outer core of the Earth. This liquid moves in complex ways as a result of the convection of the heat deep within the core and of the rotation of the planet. The motion of the core fluid is continuous and never stops, even during a reversal. It can only stop when the energy source fails. Heat is produced at least partly because of the solidification of the liquid core onto the solid inner core that sits at the centre of the Earth. This process has operated continuously over billions of years. At the top of the liquid core, some 3000 km beneath our feet and below the rocky mantle, the fluid may travel at horizontal speeds of tens of kilometres per year. The motion of this metal fluid across existing magnetic field lines of force produces electrical currents and these, in turn, generate more magnetic field. This is a process known as advection.


I like how confident they really are:

Is there any danger to life?
Almost certainly not....

Almost? LOL. Gotta leave room for error.

Human beings have been on the Earth for a number of million years, during which there have been many reversals, and there is no obvious correlation between human development and reversals. Similarly, reversal patterns do not match patterns in species extinction during geological history.


It's gets funnier and funnier as I read it. They really have no way to test how many times it has happened since humans have been on the earth. Much less it happening at all. :rolleyes:

http://www.newscient...le.ns?id=dn4985
Solar wind to shield Earth during pole flip

Hollywood now has one less disaster scenario to worry about. The Earth, it seems, will be safe when its magnetic field falters during the next reversal of its magnetic poles.

A new model of the way the Earth interacts with the solar wind indicates that a replacement field will form in the upper atmosphere during the switch.

Scientists had previously thought that the planet would be left without a protective shield to stop lethal radiation from space reaching the surface.

View Post

Sorry, I did not see that movie, though I have thought of renting it.

And here's a quote that I just had to laugh.

A new model of the way the Earth interacts with the solar wind indicates that a replacement field will form in the upper atmosphere during the switch


Care to show us the model? Or is it in such dismay, that this is only said until they actually figure this out?

The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is known to drop during "magnetic reversals", when the north and south poles swap places.


Magnetis field is known to drop during this? So it has been recorded, or just guessed at? This just keeps getting more funny to me. Talk about stuff like it's "known" when they can't even explain the process?

But as the field switches polarity, it can drop to below 10 per cent of its normal strength for thousands of years. Such a weakened field would allow lethal radiation to reach the Earth's surface, with potentially disastrous consequences for the atmosphere, the climate and particularly for life.


And this is where they are really grasping at straws to expalin this. it would be better to say they were wrong before they stick their other foot in their mouth. For if someone like h*vind said: Hey, I found some rocks below the surface of the water that were switched around in polarity. Maybe the flood caused this. How quick would the old earthers and evolutionist bring up what I have done here? And once it's done, they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Same goes with this. But yet since it is their idea, it also becomes possible. But if it was a creationist idea, it would have been impossible.

Their simulations show that the solar wind - the million-kilometre-an-hour stream of hydrogen and helium nuclei from the sun - wraps itself around the Earth in a way that induces a magnetic field in the ionosphere as strong as the original field.


How about a working model? How about a test in a lab? Not testable? Hmmm. And they make all these conclusions? And then make it sound like they know for sure?

If I did not know better, this same exact situation is what non-believers complain about believers. Claim some thing is there, or is going to happen, or has happened, but is not scientifically testable. Is this an example of science turning into a religion? :blink: It's beginning to sound like that cult that claimed a spaceship was hiding in a comets tail.

For science claims they know for sure we don't need our magnetic field, so why don't they prove it?

#5 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 10:49 AM

I am having a little trouble understanding your issues with the way scientists do science. Rarely, if ever, is there anything like a proof of a particular viewpoint. Rather, there is a "preponderance of the evidence". The theories we have are those that provide the most complete account of the data and have survived the attacks by other scientists. Most every scientist would love to have a new radical theory: that is how a scientist attracts fame, grants etc.

If any scientist could show that all radiometric dates were consistently off by as much as 20% and argue that the earth was a billion years younger, he or she would earn a Noble Prize. You think any scientist would give up a Nobel Prize just to stay in line with the old theory? Certainly not.

So let us consider the magnetic field question, as I understand it. When lava cools it picks up a weak magnetic field from the earth. All recent lava flows show the same magnetic field with the polarity like that we see today. However, if you go to deeper lava flows. Or if you go to the Hawaiian islands and look at the older islands (the older islands are more weathered and have extinct volcanoes) one finds that the lava shows a different magnetic orientation.

Then you find that all over the earth when the rock gives a particular radiometric date, one finds that the rock also gives a similar magnetic signature. It appears that the entire earth switches its polarity. One can look at the correlation between radiometric dates and the magnetic field flips and get a timeline. One can also look at how the magnetic field of lava extruded from the midatlantic ridge and show that there has been a regular expansion there away from the ridge.

Now the job of a scientist is to put all of that together and create a theory. If they want to argue that it makes sense for the poles to flip, they might decide to simulate the action of molten rock and see if they generate a reasonable prediction. Other scientists might generate other models, and then they will argue about which one is most consistent with the known data and makes the best predictions.
Here is one such model (complete with animation).
http://www.psc.edu/s...glatzmaier.html

The model suggesting that the earth will be protected during a magnetic field drop is simply a new proposal that will likely be discussed a lot over the next few years. It is certainly not accepted yet. But looking at the paper, it appears that they derived this model based on the way that the solar wind and solar plasma interacts with comets that have no significant magnetic field.


For science claims they know for sure we don't need our magnetic field, so why don't they prove it?

View Post


So it seems you don't like these sorts of models, but prefer an experiment of some sort. Unfortunately, making a new planet with all the required movements of molten rock is not a simple endeavor. Models like the one described are often overturned. Some scientists are pretty confident that cancer rates will soar if the magnetic field continues to drop. The debate continues.

It takes many years for models like this to become accepted by the scientific community, but they will never become a "proof". Science doesn't work that way. Right now, this is just one hypothesis.

If a young earth creationist wanted to show they had a better model, that would be fine. Just show that the model predicts what is known to be in the world. Simulate the expected turbulence of the flood and see if you get what is seen - flips in magnetic fields, sorting of fossils, consistent radiometric measurements, relative weathering of the "apparently old" volcanic islands etc.

If we look at simple things like the sizes of the Hawaiin islands (136,000 square miles of lava - enough to bury California a mile deep in lava), I have a lot of difficulty seeing how a young earth model can make that work. The heat generated by all the volcanoes erupting at the same time woul be impressive - and I am not sure how you would get the magnetic fields to change.

But I would certainly be entertained by the effort if the YECs give it a try.

#6 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 12:38 PM

So it seems you don't like these sorts of models, but prefer an experiment of some sort. Unfortunately, making a new planet with all the required movements of molten rock is not a simple endeavor. Models like the one described are often overturned. Some scientists are pretty confident that cancer rates will soar if the magnetic field continues to drop. The debate continues.


This is what I'm talking about. Without real world tests, or a way to do it, this all becomes mere speculation. Because for all we know, this stuff could have happened during the formation of or planet, and never happened again. But science is so bent on putting themselves in the limelight, they will keep pushing this, and will not even look at other possibilities. But are quick to shoot down any that might arise, but with only more speculation about this subject.

Can you say with 100% confidence that a polar flip actually happened just because of some lava rocks with poles in different direction?

And another point to bring up. There are things that a stationary in our earth's crust that are magnatized. How are these things going to change so that this flip can take place? Can a stationary magnet just change it's polarity at will?

#7 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 02:07 PM

This is what I'm talking about. Without real world tests, or a way to do it, this all becomes mere speculation. Because for all we know, this stuff could have happened during the formation of or planet, and never happened again.

View Post


I am not sure why you think a real world "test" would be more conclusive than a good simulation. A simulation can involve a great number of variables that could not be handled in an experiment. Suppose you want to put the Mars Rover on Mars. Yes, you can do a few experiments on earth, but the simulations represent some of the most useful science. Your simulation can include Mars gravity, Martian air resistance, models of the impact etc.

Experiments are also useful, but are certainly not proofs. If I performed an experiment with a square meter of molten rock and got some sort of pole flip, I would certainly not consider that a proof. I would want to see a simulation on an earth size scale.

If you have a theory of how life evolves or how magnetic fields flip, then you put in all your variables of things one knows along with the known laws of physics and you watch what happens. Speculation is only the first stage. You then need to show that your hypothesis is consistent with the physics and possible history.

But science is so bent on putting themselves in the limelight, they will keep pushing this, and will not even look at other possibilities. But are quick to shoot down any that might arise, but with only more speculation about this subject.

View Post


Not sure what you mean about the limelight. If you want to propose a new theory, then you need to show that it provides a better explanation of the data. Ayone can speculate. You might want to speculate that comets are made of cheese. That's easy. However, it is considerably harder to show that such an hypothesis is consistent with what we know about comets.

Can you say with 100% confidence that a polar flip actually happened just because of some lava rocks with poles in different direction?

View Post


No, never. Other than mathematical proofs, nothing in science is 100%. Nothing based on observation is 100%. An accepted theory simply has the "preponderance of the evidence" supporting it.

And another point to bring up. There are things that a stationary in our earth's crust that are magnatized. How are these things going to change so that this flip can take place? Can a stationary magnet just change it's polarity at will?

View Post


I suspect that you think of the earths magnetic field like its a big bar magnet. It is really more like an electromagnet. If you move electricity through a wire you generate a magnetic field. Change the flow and you change the magnetic field. The current theory is that molten magma (made of iron and nickle) moving in the outer core (convection- advection) creates a flow of current that produces the magnetic field. Changes to the general pattern of flow change the earth's magnetic field.

Yes, some stable rock in the earth's crust is magnetized, but I don't think that plays much of a role in the earth's magnetic field. And there are lots of anomalies on the earth (upstate NY has one). Curiously, the recent work argues that inner solid core has the opposite of the polarity of the earth as a whole and this adds to the overall magnetic field's stability. Not sure if that is widely accepted.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 02:28 PM

If you have a theory of how life evolves or how magnetic fields flip, then you put in all your variables of things one knows along with the known laws of physics and you watch what happens.  Speculation is only the first stage. You then need to show that your hypothesis is consistent with the physics and possible history.


The creationist position is that life did not evolve, and before the equivocation comes, that means that an ant some how turned into an Aristarchus, not finches growing different length beaks.

I suspect that you think of the earths magnetic field like its a big bar magnet. It is really more like an electromagnet. If you move electricity through a wire you generate a magnetic field. Change the flow and you change the magnetic field. The current theory is that molten magma (made of iron and nickle) moving in the outer core (convection-  advection) creates a flow of current that produces the magnetic field. Changes to the general pattern of flow change the earth's magnetic field.


I don't know about Admin3's position, but Dr. Huhprey's has developed a physics model from a biblical perspective that works quite well, i.e. better than the "scientific communities". Mag. field discussion


Terry

#9 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 05:09 PM

I don't know about Admin3's position, but Dr. Huhprey's has developed a physics model from a biblical perspective that works quite well, i.e. better than the "scientific communities". Terry

View Post


I have a question for you. Let's suppose you had never heard of Humphreys and you had to decide whether his research was completely flakey and full of nonsense, or whether he was an Einstein capable of overturning the research of 10,000 scientists working full time on these problems.

If you were not a specialist and could not evaluate the research yourself, how would you judge which of the two he was? On what basis would you evaluate the quality of his theories?

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:56 PM

I have a question for you. Let's suppose you had never heard of Humphreys and you had to decide whether his research was completely flakey and full of nonsense, or whether he was an Einstein capable of overturning the research of 10,000 scientists working full time on these problems.

If you were not a specialist and could not evaluate the research yourself, how would you judge which of the two he was? On what basis would you evaluate the quality of his theories?

View Post


Based on what you just said, could you do the same? I really don't think so, for I have never seen a non-believer give a creationist the time of day, much less any respect. I get from what you claim here, that maybe your complaining about creationist not accepting a scientist point of view at face value, and being a fact, and not flakey. Well, my only response would be: How does it feel? We put up with this on an everyday bases. But it does not affect our faith.

#11 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 07:00 PM

I have a question for you. Let's suppose you had never heard of Humphreys and you had to decide whether his research was completely flakey and full of nonsense, or whether he was an Einstein capable of overturning the research of 10,000 scientists working full time on these problems.

If you were not a specialist and could not evaluate the research yourself, how would you judge which of the two he was? On what basis would you evaluate the quality of his theories?


I think the more interesting question is: "What inspires such a question anyway?".

My opinion is that evolutionists have no data to argue against his posistion with(I've not seen any good arguments presented here anyway), so they attack him personally, and make an appeal to authority, instead of dealing with the science.

The basis for your quesiton does exactly both of those, so its par for the course.

Terry

#12 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2005 - 09:22 AM

My apologies if my question offended you. I really can't say I know much about Humphreys, so I was interested in how you evaluated the quality of the research. In mainstream science, there is both good and bad research, and some of the bad stuff gets published - although the bad stuff is typically published in lesser journals and usually ignored.

So it makes sense that some portion of 'creation research' is simply bad science. At first glance, it appears that Humphreys is making some big claims - apparently taking on basics tenets in physics, so he is either a genius and will someday receive the Noble prize, or he is making some significant errors and his work will be ignored and disappear over the years.

Very few people were capable of evaluating Einstein's work when it first came out. Who do you think should be evaluating Humphreys work? Do you have the training to do that? Can you follow his argument enough to defend it?

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2005 - 08:21 PM

In all fairness, would you agree that some science is also bad science?

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2005 - 02:05 AM

I really can't say I know much about Humphreys, so I was interested in how you evaluated the quality of the research.
.
.
.
Who do you think should be evaluating Humphreys work?


Anyone who can set their bias aside, understand it, and objectively evaulate it.

Do you have the training to do that?


I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, and a M.S. in Mathematics, so I'm able to follow it pretty well. I've listened to his lecture on it, and read a couple of his articles and papers, so I understand the principles behind it, and I think it makes sense.

Can you follow his argument enough to defend it?


Probably, but that depends on the ciriticism.

At first glance, it appears that Humphreys is making some big claims - apparently taking on basics tenets in physics, so he is either a genius and will someday receive the Noble prize, or he is making some significant errors and his work will be ignored and disappear over the years.


Mainstream science will never accept his ideas because they expose the foundation of sand that mainstream origins science is built upon.

I don't know him, but I've listened to him, and read enough of his publications to come to the conclusion that he is not seeking human aprobation for his research.

I believe the goal of his work is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, and help remove the barrier to the Gospel that evolution is, so that those who have "ears to hear" may listen and believe, and be saved.

Terry

#15 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 11:34 AM

"Who do you think should be evaluating Humphreys work?"
Anyone who can set their bias aside, understand it, and objectively evaulate it.

View Post


Long ago, I had a course in "general relativity" but I would never assume I could properly evaluate the math of any theory good enough to overturn Einstein.

Do think someone trained in the field should be part of the review process of such a theory? Does Humphries have any trained mathematicians showing that he at least got his math right? Is there anyone using his theories to generate new predictions? Or do we need to rely on Humphries for all this?

#16 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 03:25 PM

Aristarchus said:

I am not sure why you think a real world "test" would be more conclusive than a good simulation. A simulation can involve a great number of variables that could not be handled in an experiment.


A great number of variables does not give us "all" variables. And the ones we can't simulate, just maybe the ones that will tell us if this is actually possible.

Not sure what you mean about the limelight. If you want to propose a new theory, then you need to show that it provides a better explanation of the data. Ayone can speculate. You might want to speculate that comets are made of cheese. That's easy. However, it is considerably harder to show that such an hypothesis is consistent with what we know about comets.


Good point, and I think this magnetic flip was thought up by someone who has a cheesy brain.

No, never. Other than mathematical proofs, nothing in science is 100%. Nothing based on observation is 100%. An accepted theory simply has the "preponderance of the evidence" supporting it.


So we have a theory that is unprovable, with evidence that supports it that is unprovable?

I suspect that you think of the earths magnetic field like its a big bar magnet. It is really more like an electromagnet. If you move electricity through a wire you generate a magnetic field. Change the flow and you change the magnetic field. The current theory is that molten magma (made of iron and nickle) moving in the outer core (convection- advection) creates a flow of current that produces the magnetic field. Changes to the general pattern of flow change the earth's magnetic field.

Yes, some stable rock in the earth's crust is magnetized, but I don't think that plays much of a role in the earth's magnetic field.


In order for that theory of the earth flipping it's feilds, of course it cannot play much if a role in the eath's magnetic field. This is a fine example of how science will over look something so that what they want to be true, can be true, in their preset reality of what they believe truth is.


And there are lots of anomalies on the earth (upstate NY has one). Curiously, the recent work argues that inner solid core has the opposite of the polarity of the earth as a whole and this adds to the overall magnetic field's stability. Not sure if that is widely accepted.


It will be accepted when it is figured out that the flips did not occur as thought. After all, most theories are thoughts based on what we think happened.

#17 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 03:29 PM

My apologies if my question offended you. I really can't say I know much about Humphreys, so I was interested in how you evaluated the quality of the research. In mainstream science, there is both good and bad research, and some of the bad stuff gets published - although the bad stuff is typically published in lesser journals and usually ignored.


So it's ok for science, but as we read the next post, see a different take if creation happens to do the same.

So it makes sense that some portion of 'creation research' is simply bad science. At first glance, it appears that Humphreys is making some big claims - apparently taking on basics tenets in physics, so he is either a genius and will someday receive the Noble prize, or he is making some significant errors and his work will be ignored and disappear over the years.

Very few people were capable of evaluating Einstein's work when it first came out. Who do you think should be evaluating Humphreys work? Do you have the training to do that? Can you follow his argument enough to defend it?

View Post


Bad bad creationist. Only scientist is allowed to make such mistakes. :)

#18 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 July 2005 - 08:50 PM

A great number of variables does not give us "all" variables. And the ones we can't simulate, just maybe the ones that will tell us if this is actually possible.

View Post

I agree that that one must always be careful when interpreting simulations for the reason you mention. However, when you are trying to understand earth size problems like the magnetic field, you can't really do an experiment. There is always lots of debate about simulations as to who is doing a better job modeling modeling "all" the variables. But such debate is healthy in science.

Good point, and I think this magnetic flip was thought up by someone who has a cheesy brain.

View Post

I don't think the magnetic flip is really that controversial. Consider just a few facts that are very well established, verifiable and replicable.

1. Everywhere on earth, when lava cools it picks up the magnetic field of the environment it is in (e.g., north-south along the equator - up down along the poles).
2. All recent flows have the same magnetic field
3. If you dig down deep enough into older flows, you find that the magnetic field flips. Deeper down, you find it flips again, and again.
4. Everwhere on earth, if you date the lava by looking at the ratio of lead to uranium, you find the same flips occuring at the same 'time'.
5. The sun flips its magnetic poles every 11 years.

So what is a reasonable conclusion from these data?


After all, most theories are thoughts based on what we think happened.

View Post


Yes, but the theories must be consistent with not only the data that already exist, but consistent with new data that are found in the future. One is welcome to generate a new theory, but you must account for the data at least as well as the current theory.

#19 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2005 - 04:04 PM

In all fairness, would you agree that some science is also bad science?

View Post


Sorry I missed this question. Yes, there is quite a bit of bad science out there. Most of the bad stuff gets discovered during the paper review process and is never published, but lots gets through. However, much of the bad stuff is on topics that are rather uninteresting to most people anyway.

Any journal editor will tell you about all the wacky stuff that gets submitted to journals. But if a big claim is made, it is the responsibility of the editor to find people that know how to evaluate the theory. Reviewers are usually harsh. That is the nature of the review process, but if you are right and believe in what you are doing, it will get through.

For example, if I really believed that radiometric dating techniques were consistently off by more than 10% and had strong evidence of that, I am sure I could get that published. It would certainly attract a lot of attention and make you famous in geological circles if you could demonstrate the earth was under 4 billion years old - even if you could show it was just 3.9 billion years. I am sure a few have tried. However, the data is overwhelming at this point.

#20 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2005 - 09:17 PM

I don't think the magnetic flip is really that controversial. Consider just a few facts that are very well established, verifiable and replicable.

1. Everywhere on earth, when lava cools it picks up the magnetic field of the environment it is in (e.g., north-south along the equator - up down along the poles).
2. All recent flows have the same magnetic field
3. If you dig down deep enough into older flows, you find that the magnetic field flips. Deeper down, you find it flips again, and again.
4. Everwhere on earth, if you date the lava by looking at the ratio of lead to uranium, you find the same flips occuring at the same 'time'.
5. The sun flips its magnetic poles every 11 years.

So what is a reasonable conclusion from these data?


Has it ever been studied exactly when a lava flow can become magnetized? Hot liquid, hot half solid, or completely cooled and unmovable?

Examples:
1) What if, while the flow is still hot and movable. Kinda solid, but not completely. It becomes magnetized, but because it's still moveable, it moves after this happens making it face the wrong direction?

2) And with the way actual rock, that is aleady solid, can be shot out of an erruption. Those rocks can also land facing the wrong direction to only cool into place with the lava that is already there.

3) Multible erruptions can heat up cooled lava, break off pieces and turn them in different directions. Pieces that are solid enough to be magnetized.

I see none of the variables even considered. But if you ever watch lava flow, it would be important to know when it can become magnetized, and at what point it cannot. But the other factors I mentioned also come into play.

So when you watch a lava flow, watch how it slowly becomes solid, but is still pushed and moved by forces behind it, or from the sides. Making it flip and tumble. While it tumbles, being partly solid, ponder in your mind is it already has a magnetic field. And if so, this tumbleing will control what direction it's magnetic field will face upon it's resting place.

So my questions would be:

1) Can you say the the magnatizism of lava only accurs after it is completely cooled, and has completely stopped moving?

2) And can you prove that lava that is already cooled, can't be moved to make it's poles face in the wrong direction?

Also, the sun is mostly liquid with no crust like the earth.

Then we have the moon factor. Liquid, like water, can be pulled greatly upon by the moon. So liquid like lava could be also. So if lava flows can be affected by the moon, like our tides. Then their magnetic field maybe as well, if an erruption happens during the moons closest orbit to earth, and in the right position to have the most effect.

I wonder why these things are not talked about when polar flips are discussed? Maybe to many variables?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users