Posted on 09/05/2018 1:06:59 PM PDT by Patriot777
Many scientists firmly believe that our universe and Solar System are billions of years old. However, massive data recorded by 50 years' worth of unmanned probes traversing space shows without a doubt that the planets with their moons and comets are actually very young.
Our sun powers through its nuclear fuel, and as such it slowly changes constitution. Famed solar astronomer John A. Eddy was quoted, and others in his field believe billions of years ago the sun was dimmer and thus the Earth became a frozen ball. But Mr. Eddy has also recognized that all our information about the sun doesn't look pointedly to that vast a passage of time. In fact, when posited the question as to whether scientists could accept just 6,000 years as the likely age of our sun and Earth, he replied they could "live with" it.
Great troubles plague scientists trying to formulate the reasons for the Earth to charge on all the estimated billions with its magnetic field. Strong channels in Earth's core drive this field, but the energy loss--as in an electrical circuit--tend to drain off in the passage of time. Our planet has no exemption to this, and as such should have parted with its magnetism a very, very long time ago. Cal Tech geophysicist David Stevenson remarked: "We do not understand how the Earth's magnetic field has lasted for billions of years. We know that the Earth has had a magnetic field for most of its history. We don't know how the Earth did that...We have less of an understanding now than we thought we had a decade ago."
Historically, measurements show that Earth is at a loss of one-half of its magnetic energy every 1,400 years or so. If this is true, then the force just 30,000 give-or-take would see this planet's crust a melted mess; too much time and it's seething hot pizzaville. Now, let's talk about something that physicists utilize called the "magnetic dipole moment". This is used to calculate the power of the largest parcel of a planet's magnetism. There was much surprise among astrophysicists when spacecraft recorded that Mercury, Neptune and Uranus has MDM larger than they assumed with massive-age in mind. Actually, Mercury's magnetism shouldn't have at all been around. And Jupiter's moon Ganymede would've been long lost.
Physicist Russell Humphreys has calculated and as a result had concrete predictions of the magnetic force in the Solar System. He exactly saw the MDM of Uranus and Neptune long before they came about and the data came in and mapped. The sizeable ratcheting-down of Mercury's MDM from 1975-2011 wowed other scientists even as he actually missed the real slowdown, which was 8% and not 4-6%.
I'll continue this conversation tomorrow in the second installment, which is, "The Solar System: Old or Young? Part II".
Good grief - a simple Google search the quoted scientist, Stevenson, will lead to an article indicating that the current theories on the Earth’s magnetic field easily explain it’s generation for at least the last billion years. See http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/earth-s-magnetic-field-may-be-due-magnesium-not-radioactive-decay
Additional searches will yield reasonable explanations, as well as experimental validation, of molten metal convection currents generating magnetic fields - exactly as is theorized for the generation of the Earth’s magnetic field. See https://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st20
Got to have billions of years to explain inorganic dirt randomly evolving all the way to human beings, though billions of years is still completely insufficient to make it work statistically, even if you assume the process is possible to begin with.
However, billions of years sounds impressive enough to the rubes who won’t bother to work out all the inconvenient mathematics and find out where the problems lie.
The article is gibberish english any college graduate would (or ought to) be ashamed of. Hard to respect science opinions that do not come with scientific facts.
The defense of the article as to its own theories is not sustained by modern scientific understanding that the mechanisms of the earths magnetic field is not fully explained by empirical observations. That is actually GOOD science, admitting our limits of understanding, but it does add any support to other theories about earth’s magnetic fields that arrive with no scientific suppport, just other theories.
“Strong channels in Earth’s core drive this field, but the energy loss—as in an electrical circuit—tend to drain off in the passage of time.”
Evidence presented? None.
“Historically, measurements show that Earth is at a loss of one-half of its magnetic energy every 1,400 years or so.”
The citation took an article that covered all of 130 year period (a very brief period of time) of “recorded reports” of the earth’s magnetic field, from 1835 to 1865, of limited geograophic distribution, and imputed from that some sort of mega-historical constant. It lacked the more modern and deeper historical record that (a) the magnetic field does not display a common strength across the globe universally, nor at all times. It not only varies at any one time from one region to another, but has varied globally over the ages. At the current state of the science, a general weakening of the field in our modern times is seen as not a historical anomaly, but part of a process that has been repeated before and signals a pole-shifting event that will manifest in time.
It is not the belief of science that some original “charge” of energy set off the inner dynamo that makes earth’s magnetic field. Rather it is the differences in composition of what is believed to be earth’s molten core with the layer above literrally spinning around it that generates the magnetic field. As gravity continually affects the dynamics and changes of every layer of the earth, the consequences present constamt slow changes to the dynamo at the center. Those changes present a slowly but constantly changing magnetic field, but what adjustments in observed temporary changes in the strenght of the field DO NOT demonstrate or predict is a field that over the long term is “running down” as to its energy.
**YAWN**
There are very simple geologic formations that demonstrate the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
The Grand Canyon could not possibly have formed in 6,000 years of erosion. It is just not possible to anyone with a scientific mind. That is just one example.
The Appalachian Mountains are a very low mountain range because they have been eroding for millions of years.
The sandstone buttes of Monument Valley took millions of years to form by everything around them eroding away and being carried down to the ocean.
I like to think I am as passionate a Christian as the next guy, but it doesn’t mean I have to abandon scientific thinking just because the Old Testament cannot be reconciled against science. Myths are not intended to be taken literally, but for some reason, there is just a percentage of people who do take them literally, word for word.
If you take in your astrophysics in bites instead of large chunks, it tends not to be so overwhelming. But you MUST learn it in its purest form, not taking the word of some professor as truth. Indoctrination is not education.
Amen.
There is way too much evidence that is ignored or discredited by the current scientific ‘peer review’ process.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Check out my links page for more...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.