Replies

Water was the raw material of creation. This theory would not work using the present composition of the solar system. The nuclei of the Moon and inner planets have too little magnetic moment. The hydrogen nuclei of the Sun and outer planets have too much. Only the proportion of hydrogen in an equal mass of water gives the right results.

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.

The final blow is that the current dynamic theories already explain magnetic fields for those objects in the solar system where it's been measured. It requires no alchemical miracles to fit the existing data as well as explains the earth's own fluctuating magnetic field. Something the author's theory hasn't addressed.

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.

...

M_c = 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