From: Michael Roberts (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 14:05:23 EST
The Barnes-Humphrey mythology has been discussed many times and it seems
they dont wish to understand physics
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are
> 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
> 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