Polar reversal?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 21-6-2005 @ 02:12 PM by expert999
actually if you look at the first pic. they forgot to label the graph with the negative part.


its labeled high intensity and low intensity. they drew the line in the middle instead of the bottom where is it supposed to be. there is nowhere on the ocean floor where a north seeking compass wiill point south. there are no reverse polarity. that is another lie that supports that evolution theory. it was proven wrong. and its still used, im suprised you pulled that up.

did you know that if you heat magnetic material it loses its magnetic strength? maybe some of these pieces of magnetic material where arranged according to density (like sand in a jar) and thats how you get your second picture.

I honestly cannot believe that you pulled that up. that has been proven wrong a while ago. but if its what you believe than, thats on you.

may I point out, that there is not much salt in the ocean. if the earth is billions of years old, why isnt the water more salty? and why isnt there much accumilation at the bottom of the ocean of sediments and stuff. there is only enough to cover less than 10,000 years.


reply posted on 21-6-2005 @ 02:49 PM by Nygdan
they drew the line in the middle instead of the bottom where is it supposed to be.

? No they didn't.
it was proven wrong. and its still used, im suprised you pulled that up.

This is something that has been constantly reaffirmed.

Here's a pdf on the magnetic field in general and the relation to the crust and minerals.
Here is another pdf on geomagnetics.
Here's a paper from 1998 that deals with it.
Here's a paper form as recent as 2001 dealing with the exact same thing.
Here is a webpage that explains some of it,
Here is a neat page that has an update of the reversals information for as recently as 1995, and I am pretty sure there has been a widescale update in the last two years. And here is the original citation from Vines et al and some subsequent papers:

  1. Vine F.J., and D.H.Matthews. Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature, 199, 947-949, 1963.
  2. Vine F.J. Spreading of the ocean floor: new evidence. Science 154, 1405-1415, 1966.
  3. Gromme S., and F.J.Vine. Palaeomagnetism of Midway Atoll lavas and the northward movement of the Pacific Plate. Earth Planet. Sci. Letters, 17, 159-168, 1972.
  4. Vine, F.J. Ophiolites, ocean crust formation, and magnetic studies: A personal view. In: Ophiolite concept and the evolution of geological thought. Edited by Y. Dilek and S. Newcomb. Geological Society of America Special Paper 373, 65-75, 2003
  5. Vine, F.J. Reversals of Fortune. In: Plate Tectonics: An insider’s history of the modern theory of the Earth. Edited by N. Oreskes. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 46-66, 2001.


I honestly cannot believe that you pulled that up. that has been proven wrong a while ago. but if its what you believe than, thats on you.

I have no idea where you got the completely erroneous idea that these things had been 'refuted' or rejected. They have not been, they are used in science, to this very day, because they are well supported and have stood up to scrutiny from the scientific community.



reply posted on 22-6-2005 @ 08:27 AM by expert999
no see, here is what is really is. these graphs that you are showing me, are illustrations trying to cover up for an embarrassing problem.

see, there is not enough sediments on the ocean floor for billions of years bot even millions, and actually not even 10,000 years. the oldest desert in the world is less than 4400 years old. and the oldest reef in the world is the barrier reef in australia.

and check this out. lets just say that clams cannot climb moutains very well. but for some reason, there are many petrified clams found on the tallest moutain in the world, mount everest. Pangea tries to cover up for the lackof sediments on the ocean floor.

see if you look at the big picture, it looks like the earth is very young. and the poles are not reversing. if you dont know, supercold ice is magnetic and probably has an effect on the earths magnetic field by altering its path of magnitude. just because the magnetic field is out of place, does not mean that it has always been moving and still is moving. just like the continents, just because they are slowly moving, does not mean that they have always been moving and at the same rate.

the earth is young, people disreguard the idea that there might be a creator because if there is then that means that they are responsible for every action and will one day be judged, and most people cant deal with that.

so they make up a dumb theory (evolution) and believe in it hoping that it would be true.

and you probably wonder why I keep bring up evolution.. well if you look at the world or even the universe, you can only come to two conclusions.

1. Some made the universe
or
2. The universe made itself

no other choices there


reply posted on 22-6-2005 @ 09:17 AM by zhangmaster
I'm sorry, but those magnetic stripes are proof enough really of a pole shift. can you offer proof as to why they are insignificant?. As for the argument about the Earth being young because of sediment deposits: You forget that there are subduction zones in which new material is constantly created. Deviate further from these subduction zones to the continental margins and you'll see deeper levels of sediments that correspond with the earth being at the very least 150 million years old. Radiometric dating and measurements of the rates of sea floor spreading also corresond to these dates.


Young-earth "proof" #21: Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)


21. This is the other half of Nevins' argument (see point #15). Dr. Hovind has botched it further by asserting that only a few thousand year's worth of sediment is on the ocean floor! In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)


What are the odds of such a triple "coincidence" occurring? It boggles the mind! It's easy to see why scientists "bet" on an old-earth. And what about those magnetic stripes on the Atlantic sea floor? If that ocean floor is indeed spreading, then the thickness of those stripes and their distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge preserve a chronological record of magnetic field reversals. When those distances and widths are divided by the sea floor spreading rate, do we get a match with the magnetic reversal chronology based on the radiometric dating of continental rocks? Yes, we do!


www.talkorigins.org...




[edit on 22-6-2005 by zhangmaster]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 17 days ago with 90 member flags
An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 4 days ago with 76 member flags
Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 12 days ago with 53 member flags
Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 9 days ago with 45 member flags
Strong EQ 6.0 hits N-Italy
  Posted 6 days ago with 35 member flags
Are we all on our way out, now?
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

OMG!!! Is this for real??
  Relationships: 17 hours ago, 85 replies
RONY 2012
  US Political Madness: 10 hours ago, 63 replies
We are (nearly) all Believers!!!
  Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 37 replies
OMG: 2012 KP24 Incoming! Are we Doomed?
  2012: 11 hours ago, 35 replies