Magnetic Message from Mercury (spacecraft data validates creation-based predictions)

CMI ^ | Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

A NASA spacecraft is again testing a creationist theory about the magnetic fields of planets. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft, made by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for NASA, flew by Mercury, the innermost planet of the solar system, in the first of several close encounters before it finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.[1] As it passed, its ‘magnetometer’ made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. Probably it will take the Messenger team several months to process the magnetic data accurately.

I’m looking forward to the early results because in 1984 I made creation-based predictions regarding the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.[2] Spacecraft measurements[3,4] have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. A fourth prediction, in the conclusion, is this...

[sig226]

It isn’t. This stuff turns up all the time. It’s sad.

[MilspecRob]

What a steaming pile of nonsense

[GodGunsGuts]

I quite agree, your reply is a steaming pile of nonsense.

[GodGunsGuts]

No, it is not satire. Indeed, the cosmic evos are being forced to consider what the creation cosmologists have been saying for decades.

[socialismislost]

I am guessing by evos, you mean evolutionists. I really think you are joking with us. Im a newbie and I actually laughed when I saw this article. I thought you forgot the Onion link.

I havent run across too many science articles yet, as I find some of that stuff interesting, but mostly stick on the political articles.But if this is a serious article, then there is a profound disconnect with what is science. Saying the earth was once a giant ball of water, like some sort of cosmic gigantic raindrop is absurdity. There is nothing in this article that proves creationism.

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, the author of the article you denigrate solved the young earth/starlight travel problem, and he has made numerous accurate predictions based on his YEC cosmology. Perhaps you should look into the matter a little more before allowing your Temple of Darwin indoctrination to take over.

All the best—GGG

[socialismislost]

I dont remember denigrating the author. Where did I say that? I thought it was a spoof. It seems your faith is strong. I looked into the website and Im going to take a guess you believe in a literal account of the Bible? I may be wrong about that though.

Anyway, I just sense you have deeply held beliefs, and I respect that you do. Debating one’s faith is not my cup of tea. So Im sorry I thought it was a spoof at first. It is not scientific though.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sure it is. The author treats the Bible as history and makes specific creation-based predictions that have been validated by spacecraft data. How is that not scientific?

[socialismislost]

I am taking just the first snippet of the article and posting below.

“”God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists.””

First, astronomy and evolution are two different fields. I think you have a beef with evolution.

The first sentence “God could have” is not scientific. That is called faith. Secondly, the magnetic fields of the planets do not decay steadily. They decay variably. Thirdly, the mathematics in the article would point to over 42,000 years of decay rate for the larger planets. That kind of directly contradicts the Bible. The article takes assumption after assumption
and inserts scientific facts to support the assumptions. Thats not science.

Like I said, I dont find debating faith and good use of time. It usually just goes in endless circles.

[GodGunsGuts]

What’s the difference between saying that God could have created the Universe, as opposed to undirected natural causes could have created the same? They are both assumptions, they were both unobserved by humans, they cannot be duplicated, and therefore they both fall under the perview of historical science, which operates on the principle of multiple competing hypothesis and inference to the best explanation.

[socialismislost]

Sorry, I just posted a couple of the same points you already pointed out. I did’nt read all of the comments yet. And also, his mathematics are based on his flawed assumptions, which is why the math is way off in terms of time frames. Decay rates are variable and would not be the best predictor of age anyway, something the author of the article misses too.

[GodGunsGuts]

PS Most Evos that I know of take a much grander view of evolution than just random mutation plus natural selection.

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

[socialismislost]

Because there will never be a way to prove or disprove faith. Im agnostic, by the way, so I allow for the fact that I dont know everything and there very well could be a God. Scientific theories can be proven and disproven. The disproven ones get discarded and the proven ones can be refined and improved over time.

Science does not start out with assumptions, at least not accurate science. You are making the assumption that faith and science both fall under the perview of historical science, which is faith.

I just pointed out the incorrect and contradicting data of the article. I didnt mean for this to be some sort of huge debate.

[socialismislost]

I will check out the link, thanks. I see you are really passionate about evolution.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Because there will never be a way to prove or disprove faith.

Just as there will be no way to scientifically prove or disprove ones faith that the Universe created itself and everything in it. Both *assumptions* are philosophical/religious, and the only way to test them is to follow the standard tools of historical science which consists of multiple competing hypothesis, and inference to the best explanation.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m real passionate about a lot of things.

[socialismislost]

you cant scientifically prove or disprove faith. You sentence contradicts itself. Thas like saying a soft diamond. Or a tiny giant. Science is not based on assumptions and is certainly not philosophical/religious. You seem to have a keen mind, and an interesting out of the box way of thinking about stuff. I think you just confusing yourself though a bit.

History is not a science. You are mislabeling science. How would you repeat an experiment with Alexander the Great? It would be impossible. There is no such thing as “historical science”

[GodGunsGuts]

Oh really, does science assume that there is a reality outside of the observer?

[socialismislost]

I dont think I asked that question. “reality outside of the observer” is a philosophical/religious debate. Science wouldnt ask that question either.

[AndrewC]

Even though the author has still not explained how the water on all the bodies in the universe has morphed into their current compositions, he continues to contradict himself.

His theory requires that magnetic fields decay at a consistent rate since the creation 6000 years ago, yet the sun's magnetic field continues to fluctuate every 11 years or so. The author has no explanation for this spectacular failure of his theory.

Additionally his own calculations show that, based on his theory, Jupiter was formed over 41,000 years ago. 35,000 years before creation. No explanation at all for this dramatic failure.

Before I go into your comment, I do not ascribe to nor deny his theory. I am just commenting on it.

First, I believe he stated that it was an assumption, here ... "Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed." He used that as an assumption to derive some values used in the equations he later presented. Now you don't have to accept his assumption, in which case, just say so and move on since the outcome has been decided for you.

Second, he does address the Sun ...

The Sun has the largest magnetic moment of any object in the solar system. The fields at its surface are usually complex. They are very strong in some places, especially near sunspots. The Sun's magnetic fields and sunspot activity go through a fairly regular 22-year cycle¹⁶. When the number of sunspots is at a minimum, the Sun's general magnetic field is nearly dipolar.¹⁷ At that time, according to spectroscopic observations, the Sun's magnetic moment has its maximum value:^18-20

M ~ 3.5 x 10²⁹ J/T (data).    (11)

This value is only approximate because no space probe has orbited the Sun to make more accurate measurements.

The magnetic moment does not stay at this peak level long. Over a period of years it steadily decreases to zero, reverses direction, and begins to increase again.

...

Mc = 4.65 x 1029 J/T (theory).	(12)
This value is only about 25 percent higher than the latest observed peak. If this theory is correct, the Sun's magnetic field has not changed much since creation. The Sun's energies churn up the field, reversing it periodically, but they have not made the magnetic moment any larger. Instead, the churning seems to have decreased the field a bit.

Third, you misread his chart. The halflife of decay for Jupiter's field is >41,000 years, not the age which is assumed as 6000 years.(that applies to all of the bodies that is how he got his half life values)

Finally, this is the theory visually.

Mercury is anomalous. Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune are to be determined. His theory evidently would put their values between Earth's and Saturn's present values.

Mercury is the problem