Replies

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

Excellent reply, AC! Just out of curiosity, do you find Humphrey’s conclusion reasonable, given his prediction?:

“Note added January 31, 2008: A news conference by the Messenger team yesterday reported that ‘ … the mean dipole has the same intensity to within a few percent and has the same slight tilt …’ This is consistent with my prediction. The two more flybys, more extensive analysis, and finally the year-long orbit of Mercury in 2011 may reduce the statistical measurement errors enough to resolve whether my prediction is correct.”

His assumption is faith based. He has no values nor data which he then extrapolates his data from.

“Over a period of years it steadily decreases to zero, reverses direction, and begins to increase again.”

That is incorrect. Its is variable and the rate and function to which is goes to zero and reverses direction is not well understood. That is called an assumption and thta is not science.

Good too see you again AndrewC and thank you for your comments.

I think you did a better job of reading his paper than I did. I have only a few responses in my defense.

I saw the assumption that:

"Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed."

My feeling on this is that if he's going to make a scientific argument, he can't drop the science and resort to the old "and then something magical occurs". In spite of the popularity of this procedure in science historically, it renders the whole argument invalid. There are materialistic consequences of the transformation

Although he describes the sun, he doesn't show how it has resisted the general decay he has predicted in his theory. Or how the field reverses itself when he doesn't allow this possibility for any other body in the solar system. It would be interesting to see how he would interpret the Ulysses spacecraft solar data.

Finally, I think you have a better understanding of what he's trying to say than I do.

I have to say that it's good to see you on these threads again. There's no color to the discussion. ;)