Re: Barne's Magnetic Data

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 14:05:23 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Barne's Magnetic Data"

    The Barnes-Humphrey mythology has been discussed many times and it seems
    they dont wish to understand physics

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "allenroy" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:50 PM
    Subject: Barne's Magnetic Data

    > 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.

    This actually included measurements from 1829 (I gave 1831 because I hadnt

    > ---. 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.

    It has been pointed out frequently that this is a misunderstanding of Lamb
    > 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)
    Actually thios excluded the non-dipole field

    > 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?
    Dalrymple Jour geological education 1983, vol31 p124ff
    > 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.
    > K.W.
    > PS. Your research may need to go a little beyond Talk.Origins to find
    > reality.
    > ----------------
    > 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

    What has a victorian woman got to do with all this? What credentials has she
    got as either a scientist or an orthodox christian?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 16:15:11 EST