> "Morton canât have read the article properly, because it mentions rapid
> reversals during the Flood, not just simple exponential decay. And
> Humphreysâ model successfully predicted that reversals would be found in
> lava which had cooled in days or weeks. This was a shock to
> uniformitarians. Morton also confuses intensity (B) and energy (the
> volume integral of B-squared). The energy is always decreasing, even
> though the field reversed rapidly during the Flood."
> >>The idea that the current decay can only be extrapolated back 10,000
> >>years is somewhat misleading, even if we didn't know that the polarity
> >>reverses itself periodically. The creationists use an exponential
> >>function to extrapolate back in time, whereas they could just as well
> >>use a linear function (we don't have enough data points to differentiate
> >>the two) which would give an "age of the earth" of several hundred million
> >>years, I think.
> "Obviously there is a lack of thought here. Exponential decay is a
> well-known phenomenon for currents decaying in resistance/inductance
> circuits. Linear decay might look good on a graph, but itâs physically
> absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. Thomas
> Barnes, who first pointed out magnetic field decay as a problem for
> evolutionists, was a specialist in electromagnetism and wrote some
> well-regarded textbooks on the subject. But most of his critics are
> crassly ignorant of the subject.
First, linear decay is not "absurd" if the characteristic decay
time T is long in comparison with time intervals over which measurements
are made: exp(-t/T) ~ 1 - t/T (or similar cutoff Taylor series for
other functions). Of course the question of whether T _is_ much longer
than t for available data is precisely the question.
Second, since you seem to place great emphasis on your experts'
expertise, it is perhaps worth saying something about that of Barnes.
His _Physics of the Future_, published by ICR (1983) is illuminating.
He does appear competent at working with classical electromagnetism.
However, his grasp of relativity & quantum theory (both of which he
rejects & is trying to replace) is badly flawed. He seems to know
little about the real history of the areas, & shows no awareness of the
current observational & theoretical situation with regard to them.
E.g., he appears to think that the Bohr model of the atom is modern
quantum theory & huffs & puffs mightily trying to produce a classical
atomic model, but can't even come up with the Rydberg. His refutations
of 20th century physics are simply bluster, dressed up with some
formulas to impress the ignorant.
George L. Murphy