Re: Barne's Magnetic Data

From: allenroy (
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 17:08:25 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Ken Ham"

    This is from my Anonymous friend again:


    No one answered any of the science, instead they avoided the questions.

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

    The first guy replies with Barnes/Humphreys namecalling, I suggest that
    he has not read the latest Humphreys CRSQ paper, nor has he responded to
    it. I suggest asking the first fellow what his background in physics is.

    >If one assumes that the earth's field is simply frozen into a core
    with finite
    >conductivity then it's easy to do a back of the envelope calculation &
    get exponential
    >decay with a characteristic time of a few thousand years, & it's
    simple enough to fit a
    >semi-log plot to a few data points. But this makes sense only if one
    has reason to
    >believe that such a model is adequate to explain geomagnetic data & it

    >But in a more fundamental way the whole enterprise is just silly because
    >paleomagnetic data extends back millions of years. Beyond that, we're
    now getting
    >detailed information - e.g., from the current Wilkinson Microwave
    Anisotropy Probe
    >(WMAP) - about the condition of the universe ~13 _billion_ years ago.
    The whole YEC
    >enterprise is just sad. It's not just that a lot of ignorant people
    buy into it, but
    >that there are some who have real ability for science who have been
    misled into wasting
    >their talents on a completely futile enterprise.

    The second comment. One does not do a "back of the envelope"
    calculation to get the exponential decay time. In fact, if the guy did
    a little homework, he would realize that different decay times are
    present for different initial current distributions. The point is that
    a reasonable value for the core conductivity and core radius gives a
    value for the experimentally observed field decrease that is very near
    its measured value. No other theory agrees with the directly measured
    data, that includes the supposed dynamo theory. One does have reason to
    suppose that such a theory explains most of what is going on.


    Paleomagnetic data is not directly measured by people during the time
    the events happened, and thus subject to interpretation. The epochs are
    inferred, as are the supposed locations of the continents at various
    times. Paleomagnetic data can be reconciled within a young earth
    framework and global noahic flood with catastrophic plate tectonics and
    rapid geomagnetic reversals.


    The WMAP data is simply an observation about cosmic background
    radiation. When this occured is subject to interpretation. In young
    earth cosmologies, this observation proves nothing about the age of the
    universe. The fitting to the WMAP data involves several fudge
    parameters from toy models that can fit a wide range of behaviors, so it
    is not very fundamental in that sense.


    "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 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 17:06:50 EST