Barne's Magnetic Data

From: allenroy (
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 10:50:37 EST

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Re: test questions-old topic"

    I let a friend of mine read some anonymous comments on Barnes and his
    magnetic data that was made here not long ago. He (anonymously) makes
    the following comments. (following the **** marks)
    Allen Roy

    >Barnes took the data from c1835 which shows that aspect of the
    magnetic field has been declining. However Barnes left out the first
    reading from c1831 which was lower than the second of c1835. It was in
    the data he cited so i presume he ignored as it was inconvenient.
    Naughty Boy!! So he was wrong (Ken Ham would prefer to say Fraudulent)
    to do this . <

    ****Let's examine the reference where Barne's obtained the data from.

    McDonald, Keith L. and Robert H. Gunst. 1967. An analysis of the earth's
    magnetic field from 1835 to 1965. ESSA Technical ReportIER 4 6 -IES 1,
    U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

    ---. 1968. Recent trends in the earth's magnetic field. Journal of
    Geophysical Research 73:2057-2067. This is a summary of their ESSA
    report of 1967.

    *****Note the title, " . . earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965". It
    is the secular guys who chose this time period, starting from 1835. They
    are the ones who pointed out that the data shows that the earth's field
    had decayed 8% over that time period.. Barnes did nothing wrong or
    fraudulent in the least, he simply used the same data and provided an
    exponential fit as predicted by the Lamb theory of free induction decay.

    Why would one take data from 1835 onward and neglect all kinds of data
    from prior to that time? Because it was in 1833 and 1839 that Karl Gauss
    began systematizing the analysis and measurement of earth's magnetic
    field, Gauss' first recorded data of the total strength of the earth's
    magnetic moment was in 1835. (see references to Gauss in Humphreys paper
    cited below)

    There were all kinds of data from magnetic dip needles prior to Gauss,
    in fact, going clear back to 1600, but there was nothing systematic
    until Gauss published his analysis of data using what are now called
    spherical harmonics, to separate out the earth's dipole and non-dipole
    field components. By the way, the earlier data with dip needles also
    shows the same marked decay of the magnetic field with time, although
    the slope is slightly different than some of the most recent data. It
    makes no sense to only include the one data point in 1831, if one is
    going to go back prior to Gauss. What is your citation for the value you
    claim was neglected by Barnes?

    The data prior to Gauss shows a large decay, at least as far back as
    1600, as figure 2.11, p. 56, in Merrill, McElhinny, and McFadden's book
    "The Magnetic Field of the Earth", (Academic Press, 1996) clearly shows.
    In fact, as McElhinny et al discuss on p. 55-57, several secular authors
    have analyzed the data since 1835 and they quote a number of about 5%
    per century since then, for the decrease of the earth's dipole field. So
    there is no question about the observed decrease in the dipole component
    of the earth's magnetic field. It is very large. Therefore the notion
    that the earth's magnetic dipole field has decayed strongly is only
    established further by examining all the earlier, directly measured data.

    All this and much more is discussed in detail and references provided in
    Russ Humphreys excellent recent CRSQ paper. I recommend you read it so
    that you will know what Humphreys really says.

    A copy of Russ Humphreys recent CRSQ article can be found on the CRS web
    site here,

    You can also get a PDF version, if you prefer, at the same location at
    the top of the page.


    PS. Your research may need to go a little beyond Talk.Origins to find

    Allen Roy

    "I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found
    in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the
    present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in
    the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture
    beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred
    Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and
    seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a
    boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six
    literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as
    incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 10:49:12 EST