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.”
If you are speaking of the reference to Psalms 19:1, yes. I'm not sure what other conclusion you are referring to among those he presents.
What I see as his "theory" is that the magnetic moment of a celestial body is related to its mass. His assumption is that it is related directly to the equivalent mass of water and the alignment of the hydrogen nuclei(single protons). Oxygen nuclei, and the electrons all cancel, but aligning the hydrogen nuclei together will result in a residual moment.(he does not mention deuterium) Taking that assumption he develops an equation which calculates the moment for a mass of water so aligned equivalent to the mass of the body. This moment is the initial moment given at the creation of the body. He then uses the measured moments of the individual bodies to calculate a decay time assuming a 6,000 year old creation. So far nothing special, since there is a lot of fudge factor. The thing that supports his theory is that the measured decay rate of the earth's magnetic moment is in line with his equations. What is not is the fact that Jupiter has to be fudged in since it would show an increase in magnetic moment using the same k factor as the other bodies. Plus you can see that Mercury is anomolous in decay rate.