Posted on 10/26/2011 8:44:02 AM PDT by fishtank
Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Oct. 26, 2011
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."1
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.2 He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Then, he plotted the rate at which the magnetic fields would have diminished over the roughly 6,000 years since. Humphreys wrote, "Electrical resistance in a planet's core will decrease the electrical current causing the magnetic field, just as friction slows down a flywheel."3 The resulting model accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, as well as the declining strength of Mercury's field.4
In 2008, Messenger flew past Mercury and captured a magnetic field measurement, and Humphreys compared it with the decaying slope generated by his creation model. Sure enough, Mercury's magnetic field strength had diminished since 1974, right in line with the predicted value of the creation magnetic field model.
If Mercury's magnetic field is supposed to have lasted for many millions of years, then it should be very stable over vast time periods. But as Messenger's data show, researchers can measure its decay within a person's lifetime.
Humphreys wrote, "My predicted 4% decrease in only 33 years would be very hard for evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields to explain, but a greater decrease would be even harder on the theories."3 He anticipated more accurate 2011 measurements, which Science published on September 30.
The Science authors wrote that the field strength for Mercury is "~27% lower in magnitude than the centered-dipole estimate implied by the polar Mariner 10 flyby."5 This confirms that Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly diminishing, which in turn confirms that the field must only be thousands of years old—just as the creation model predicts.
References
Ness, N. F. 1979. The magnetic field of Mercury. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 20 (2-4): 209-217.
Humphreys, D. R. 1984. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3): 140-149.
Humphreys, D. R. 2008. Mercury's magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 8-9.
Humphreys, D. R. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).
Anderson, B. J. et al. 2011. The Global Magnetic Field of Mercury from MESSENGER Orbital Observations. Science. 333 (6051): 1859-1862.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
OMG! Global DeMagnetization.
George Bush’s fault!
More pin-headery from the infamous Brian Thomas.
Did they consider cycling? The flipping of the poles? Ignoring some data, while focusing on one set to fit a conclusion. Not saying impossible, it just ignores too much other evidence.
Did they consider ANYTHING that would go against their preconceived notions? Of course not!
Being a creationist means never having to let a silly little thing like evidence change what you believe about the natural world.
Evidence is to be ignored, while focusing on the one thing they can find that seems to fit their previously arrived at and ‘not to be questioned because it is from God’ conclusion.
must be those God rays...
Why do folk assume that belief in Creation means accepting a “young earth” version??
Yes I sea! It makes perfect sense, base the initial assumption on a nothing solid, pure water world, ignore any of the changes introducing any solid matter would cause, assume a magnetic field decay rate of pure water that gives the "correct" age, do the calculations based on that decay rate, and get the age you set the decay rate to cause, claim Scientific Proof, and declare victory.
Why do folks assume that it’s OK to mock someone for their belief in Creation. That’s what demoncrats do. They mock when you don’t believe the way they do. I thought FR was better than that.
“Did they consider ANYTHING that would go against their preconceived notions? Of course not!”
I specialize in fluid flow and two-phase particle/fluid systems.
When I see the evidence of massive sedimentary layers with large entrained rocks and boulders in the midst of those layers, the evidence tells me they were deposited in a large worldwide flood.
But then others with a preconceived notion of tranquil millions-of-years-old seas say that uniformitarian conditions were responsible, then the gig is up.
This might be one of those situations.
“Global warming” is a classic example of “political science”. Darwnism is another.
Fishtank, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering
(1) I don’t think you understand the basis of his calcs. The article does seem to have some missing info, I grant you that.
(2) Do you have an possible physical model that could expalin the MEASUREMENTS that have been made?
Fishtank, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering
Science is of use in discovery and application.
Creationism is an intellectual dead end that has led to nothing in terms of discovery and useful application.
So it is not so much that creationists are WRONG - it is that they are absolutely USELESS.
It isn't so much that a scientific model is correct - it is that it is of use in explaining and predicting reality.
According to the YEC-ees your tagline means that when Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character" he clearly meant that he was looking forward to a single literal 24 hour period in all of history when character matters more than color for judging one single man.
It doesn’t.
However, I can tell you that I believe 100% in a recent worldwide Noahic flood, but I’m only about 99% confident in a recent total creation.
There are plenty of Christians who believe in a billions-year-old earth. Not many of those believe in a recent literal worldwide catastrophic flood, though. That is where I think they err, however.
I try to practice charity in all my discussions on this, though. There’s too little of that.
I’ve never understood that either.
It is not necessary, IMO, to assume the “days” of Genesis refer to 24 hour periods.
Or, FTM, that the days must all be of the same length.
Or to decide that God is incapable of using the evolutionary process as part of his Creation.
I look forward to your future posts. Keep up the great work, sir! (Make that, Dr. Sir!)
I can only speak for myself, but whereas I believe whole-heartedly in a billions of years old earth, I do beleive in a recent catastrophic flood. Even non-Christians have a tough time explaining why such an event spans so many different cultures throughout the planet.
A bit.
IF we believe the article, we cannot explain the clearly documented magnetic field reversals in the Earth's geological record.
Mars and Mercury have approximately the same mass. Mercury has a magnetic field. Mars, not so much.
Earth and Venus? Same story.
IF we believe the premise, all equal mass planets should have identical magnetic fields.
They don't.
Science changes all the time to better be able to explain and predict reality.
When this happens creationists are actually ignorant and deluded enough to point to this in an attempt to say that science is useless because it changes day to day - and what scientists think they know is subject to change!
They are actually stupid enough to think this is a point in their favor!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.