Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Magnetic Pole Reversal: Not So Fast

18 posts in this topic

Here is an article that proves, through easy-to-duplicate experiment, that magnetic orientations in rock strata do not prove that there have been magnetic pole reversals in the past. Please also see the link at the end of the article ("follow up"):

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.info/v18i3f.htm

In our experiments, it didn’t matter if we aligned the depression in the paper towel North/South, East/West, or any other direction. The Earth’s magnetic field had nothing to do with it.

In our experiments, it didn’t matter how much time elapsed between dropping magnets onto the towel. Time had nothing to do with it. (The only reason to believe that time might be involved is because the hypothesis assumed that alignment is based on the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field, and that the magnetic field changes direction with time. Since the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field doesn’t change with time, and the direction doesn’t matter anyway, time doesn’t matter at all.)

There is no reason to believe that magnets in nature behave any differently than magnets on our kitchen table.

Faced with the experimental proof that the orientation of residual magnetism is determined by a well-established physical principle (specifically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says things naturally try to minimize energy differences), and has nothing to do with time, the myth that paleomagnetism can be used to determine when anything happened in the past is BUSTED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flawed experiment.

If they were testing the theory, "What do powerful permanent magnets do on a table", then the experiment was a perfect success. (the little neodymium magnets they used have a .59lb and are only 3/4" long and 1/16"dia)

I thought they were supposed to be testing the effect of magnetic fields on ferrous metals deposited in layers at different times. 

The only thing busted here is the myth that they conducted an experiment that disproves the hypothesis they set out to disprove. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis was that magnetic lines in the earth were due to pole shifts in the past, and this experiment proves that no such correlation exists. But I'd challenge you to write to the guy and tell him his experiment is flawed. He does respond to email challenges; in fact, the link at the end is to one such challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis was that magnetic lines in the earth were due to pole shifts in the past, and this experiment proves that no such correlation exists. But I'd challenge you to write to the guy and tell him his experiment is flawed. He does respond to email challenges; in fact, the link at the end is to one such challenge.

The problem is he did not disprove the hypothesis simply by replicating a similar result. (and if you had watched the video with him physically manipulating the experiment, you'd know what I am talking about)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is he did not disprove the hypothesis simply by replicating a similar result. (and if you had watched the video with him physically manipulating the experiment, you'd know what I am talking about)

I have watched the video. But why don't you email him and correct him? I'm sure he'd be happy to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched the video. But why don't you email him and correct him? I'm sure he'd be happy to be corrected.

The guy was deliberately orienting the magnets to get them into the position he wanted them in (as seen in the video), why would I believe he would be happy to be corrected? 

However, I did think of an experiment that actually would mimic the process of the hypothesis. If I get really bored over the winter, I'll actually test it out and let the results show what they show bias free. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was deliberately orienting the magnets to get them into the position he wanted them in (as seen in the video), why would I believe he would be happy to be corrected? 

However, I did think of an experiment that actually would mimic the process of the hypothesis. If I get really bored over the winter, I'll actually test it out and let the results show what they show bias free. :)

He let the magnets drop. I think you should email him and educate him on his poorly-done experiment. Failing to do so because you presume he wouldn't listen isn't how people move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He let the magnets drop. I think you should email him and educate him on his poorly-done experiment. Failing to do so because you presume he wouldn't listen isn't how people move forward.

He only dropped in the first row. From the 6:15 mark onwards through the first experiment, he only lets them roll. (note, in the video he didn't even begin the experiment until 5:45) Since the magnets are cylindrical in shape, you can add a bias by choosing how you orient the magnet prior to rolling it.

In the second part of the experiment (starting at about 7:30 in the video) he drops the first row (like he did in the first part), then starts tossing them into position but only 2 magnets connected to made a second row and a third one in the second row that didn't connect. Then there is an edit in the video at 8:15 when there is suddenly 3 full rows of magnets and he slowly rolls another completed row of magnets into position. 

At that level of manipulation to yield a desired result, I have no reason to think that he would be at all interested in actual criticism of his experiment. (which is the exact same reason I don't send letters or emails to the American Journal of Science for some of the bullshit they put out)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, he has responded to other people; why wouldn't he respond to you? Why not make a video of your own experiment and send it to him? It's not like it costs anything but a few minutes of your time. I have a blog that hardly anyone reads and no one ever contacts me about. But that doesn't stop me from writing, because you never know who you might help. Don't presume what he may or may not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, he has responded to other people; why wouldn't he respond to you? Why not make a video of your own experiment and send it to him? It's not like it costs anything but a few minutes of your time. I have a blog that hardly anyone reads and no one ever contacts me about. But that doesn't stop me from writing, because you never know who you might help. Don't presume what he may or may not do.

If I do it, I do plan on documenting the process and materials, not for a video, but so that anyone else can try it for themselves.

However, after reading the follow up article and a similar statement (in concept at least) was posed to him, he merely dismissed the question with a vague reference that pretty much read like "because they are wrong" without actually refuting anything. Not the kind of open minded person I'd bother wasting my time for. 

The statement:  http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v18i4e.htm

Björn was partially right about one thing.

"It should be said that the correct order is: Scientists have dated many rocks by scientific methods and then found that the magnetism pointed South at certain times in earth's history, and North at other times. So a chart involving many evident poleshifts [sic] has been constructed. If the bizarre idea of enormous chunks of rocks aligning spontaneously is untenable, then what evidence is left against poleshifts [sic]?) None."

Scientists have INCORRECTLY dated rocks, and have constructed charts claiming the Earth’s magnetic field reversed in the past based on those incorrect dates and a false assumption. The only reason for believing that the poles have shifted (that is, reversed polarity) is the acceptance of those erroneous charts.

While I won't waste my time for him, I will attempt to invest my time for the folks here at Conspiracy Outpost over the coming winter. (Winter is Comin' !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If I do it, I do plan on documenting the process and materials, not for a video, but so that anyone else can try it for themselves.

However, after reading the follow up article and a similar statement (in concept at least) was posed to him, he merely dismissed the question with a vague reference that pretty much read like "because they are wrong" without actually refuting anything. Not the kind of open minded person I'd bother wasting my time for. 

The statement:  http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v18i4e.htm

While I won't waste my time for him, I will attempt to invest my time for the folks here at Conspiracy Outpost over the coming winter. (Winter is Comin' !)

You seem to think that this guy has no other articles at his site, has not done a bazillion of them on rock dating, and has to essentially reinvent the wheel just for you. Once again, TELL HIM YOUR OPINION and set him straight, and make sure you understand what he's saying. I didn't get that meaning at all "because they are wrong"... he HAS refuted standard rock dating methods, in many articles. His newsletters are detailed and logical.

I get that you refuse to be bothered with such trivialities as helping someone you think is deluded and hasn't done his homework. But that in itself is telling me something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, maybe you're right... you will brush aside his response as you brushed aside everything else so far. 

Anyway, to anyone else reading this thread, my purpose was to show that magnetic pole reversal is far, far away from being a proved scientific fact. There is simply no irrefutable proof that this has ever happened. And that in turn has bearing on many other theories, most of which are CT world doom predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.