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...

[socialismislost]

its socialismislost, as in I hope it stays lost forever. I read quite a bit and do have a background in science, believe it or not. You have a good night as well. Like I said, these things always end up in circles.

[socialismislost]

I see you still refuse to look up the definition. History is a description GGG. History can be a description of science. It is not science, no matter how many times you try to equate the two. Vast Majority? Dont think so. And I happen to disagree with global warming as well. The sun is the main ingredient in weather patterns. A supervolcanoe eruption in the past has unleashed more CO2 than everything humans have emmitted up to date. At one time. Humans contribute very little to climate change.

[GodGunsGuts]

As I stated before, historical science means science that attempts to reconstruct the unobservable, unrepeatable past. This is common knowledge. You really ought to consider reading up on it before publicly commenting on the subject again. And while I agree that the notion of anthropogenic global warming is based on junk science, I don't see what that has to do with our present discussion.

[AndrewC]

do you find Humphrey’s conclusion reasonable, given his prediction?:

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.

[AndrewC]

He has no values nor data which he then extrapolates his data from.

Please read the paper. He did not make up the masses of the bodies, nor the mass of water, nor the measured moments presently possessed by those bodies.

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.

Really?

The Solar Dynamo

The fact that the Sun's magnetic field changes dramatically over the course of just a few years, and the fact that it changes in a cyclical manner indicates that the magnetic field continues to be generated within the Sun. A successful model for the solar dynamo must explain several observations: 1) the 11-year period of the sunspot cycle, 2) the equator-ward drift of the active latitude as seen in the butterfly diagram, 3) Hale's polarity law and the 22-year magnetic cycle, 4) Joy's law for the observed tilt of sunspot groups and, 5) the reversal of the polar magnetic fields near the time of cycle maximum as seen in the magnetic butterfly diagram.These features of the Sun's magnetic dynamo can all be seen in a movie of the Sun's magnetic field over the last 22-years (15Mb Quicktime Movie), (15Mb AVI Movie), (86 Mb AVI Movie).

[socialismislost]

I will leave you with this. Something that is unobservable and unrepeatable is not science. Thats called faith. Stating that it is common knowledgle does not make it so. Its still called faith.

[socialismislost]

you take a extremely small time cycle and extrapolate. His data was from an assumption, like it or not. I didnt say he made up the masses of the bodies or of water. The solar dynamo is still not understood over the life cycle of the sun. Your numbered description details your fallacy. Science still does not fully understand the dynamics. It does not mean that science is the bad guy. It means faith bases opinions are not science, masquerading as science. Google the scientific method, then go back and re-read some of my posts.

[socialismislost]

And not to point it out, but it invalidates the original post. You have provided a good point, at your expense however. And the posters. And you will still miss what I am saying.

[GodGunsGuts]

Then evolution is not science, have it your way.

[AndrewC]

His data was from an assumption, like it or not

You can repeat your statement a hundred times, but the numbers are data not of his making. He puts them together in a fashion which seems to be beyond your comprehension.

He indicates assumptions clearly in his paper. Whatever you think about his assumptions the equations accurately use the data that he has. Now admittedly he has a great deal of fudge factor, but as I stated the measured decay of the earth's moment is in line with the equations. Look, forget everything he says about what he thinks happened and use whatever numbers you want for the things he assumed. Use 4 billion years as the creation time if you like. You will produce a chart almost exactly like his with bigger numbers. What your chart will not show is the consistency of the earth's measured decay rate with your calculated rate.

[AndrewC]

You have provided a good point, at your expense however.

What the heck are you talking about? My expense? I clearly stated that I neither adhere to nor deny his theory. I don't have a dog in this race. I just commented on it. You don't like it? Well, don't comment on it then.

[Wacka]

You must be new here.
GGG and his groupies, who have no or very rudimentary science backgrounds are experts in molecular biology, evolution, paleontology, geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, and most other sciences.
If you do not follow their very narrow interpretation of the Bible (which version, I don't know), you are labeled a liberal, atheistic evolutionist. They don't believe that Catholics are Christians.
GGG spams FR with articles from a creationist magazine which takes legitimate articles, incorrectly summarizes them and then slaps on a paragraph stating since it is so complicated god did it.
When faced with scientifically proven data, they ignore it or come up with some fanciful reason why it must be wrong.
Be prepared to be called a lot of names, it has started already.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

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. ;)

[whattajoke]

I dont remember denigrating the author.

Please feel free to denigrate the author as you see fit. Here are some of his more, um, interesting ideas.

[whattajoke]

What I see as his "theory" is that the magnetic moment of a celestial body is related to its mass... 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.

Is this the polite fellow-creationist way of saying you feel Humphrey's is a nutter? I'm not trying to be coy, I'm serious. Several creationists (Hugh Ross, notably) have called out Humphreys for bringing mockery to creationism.

[whattajoke]

Good synopsis, Wacka. Might I add, too, that you - socialismislost, will also be going to hell (much to the smirking delight of some here), you must worship Satan for a lot of science is Satanic and biology (evolution) is the worst branch of all. Accepting it is akin to belonging to the Communist Party and sacrificing your first born son - oh wait, OT God said to do that, nevermind.

Mostly, you'll be labeled a liberal, your screename be damned. You ARE a liberal. And for the heck of it, HIV does not cause AIDS, humans have regrown limbs and eyes and stuff thanks to some church in CA one of the FR creationists belongs to, the Grand Canyon was formed in a day and darnit, there are no transitional fossils.

Oh, one more, humans and dinosaurs lived in perfect harmony. Welcome!

[socialismislost]

Thanks, I quit debating it last night. Just went in circles, and I let stuff roll, so I cool.

[Lando Lincoln]

good...grief...

[GodGunsGuts]

I know what you mean. Science is unwittingly validating creationist predictions left and right. The evo-prediction of “junk” DNA has proven to the dead-wrong, and is almost entirely functional...just as the creationists predicted. Darwin’s so-called “tree of life” has had to be hacked down and replaced with an orchard or forest of life, just as the creationists predicted. Virtually all of the organs the evos predicted as supposedly vestigal are turning out to be functional...just as the creationists predicted. The Big Bang cosmologists are being forced to consider a universe with a center and an edge, just as creationists predicted. Indeed, the list of validated creationist predictions goes on and on and on....You would think that after a while the Evos would start getting a clue.

[AndrewC]

Thanks, nice to see you on the thread. Anyway, the numbers are what are important. They describe something. He views the cause in one way, others may view the cause as something else. Whatever the cause, the numbers are still there. That final chart's values on the right display a practically indisputable relationship of points. The left side of the chart is the manufactured data developed according to his viewpoint. The abscissa is his assumption of the time involved. Except for the earth, the decay rates are manufactured. The earth's decay rate is a measured value and the calculated value using his "theory" is very close in value.

As a relationship, the theory is unremarkable, since bigger dynamos would produce bigger magnetic moments. And bigger objects would be expected to lose energy more slowly. The chart shows those relationships except for Mercury. However, the decay value calculated for the earth using his "assumptions" is very close to the actual measured value.