Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model – Again!

 

 

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

 

 

Send This

 

Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model

 

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

 

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 magnetic moment was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which yields a field strength “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

 

… read on…

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

Related articles

• Creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicted magnetic field strength for Uranus, Neptune, Mercury; NASA way off (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Scientists Discover New Super-Magnetic Star (newswatch.nationalgeographic.com)
• Spinning Carbon Nanotubes Open Pores In Cancer Cells (cen.acs.org)
• Climate Models Are Crap (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)

 

Creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicted magnetic field strength for Uranus, Neptune, Mercury; NASA way off

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The planet Mercury is proving to be a big problem for the big brains at NASA that try to fit it into billions-of-years ages:

http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft (figure 1) is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized.¹ The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near the center of those plains. That leads the analyzing team to believe that the magnetization comes from basalt solidified from lava flowing up out of the deeper crust throughout the plain…..

…

This adds to the string of surprises Mercury’s magnetic field has given uniformitarian⁴ space scientists. Before Mariner 10 zoomed by the planet in 1974 and 1975, experts had expected the planet to have zero field. Instead, those flybys showed that Mercury has a significant magnetic field, about 1% of Earth’s. Since then, theorists have tried many versions of the ‘dynamo’ theory (which imagines a planet’s core acting like an electric generator) to explain how Mercury could have a field and sustain it for eons. In the last few years, they have been trying to understand why the field is so low compared to Earth’s.

The data sent back from the Mercury probe validates two predictions from Creation science, as explained by physicist Russ Humphreys in an article written in 1984:

#1. That Mercury would have a significant magnetic field, though weaker than Earth’s, because of the young age of Mercury (thousands). NASA scientists expected it to have zero strength. They found it has 1% of Earth’s.

#2. That the strength of the magnetic field would be fading fast. Measurements made in 2011 show the field is 8% weaker than in 1975, an astonishingly fast decrease. This calculates into a “fast rate of decay (half-life of 350 years)”. The conclusion is that the crust was magnetized only thousands of years ago.

In 1984, Humphreys also predicted a range for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.

http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Voyager Tests the Theory

Two years later, on January 20, 1986, Voyager II passed by Uranus. It showed that Uranus has a magnetic moment of 3.0 x 10²⁴ A m², well within the bounds of my prediction. In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.⁷ This prediction grew directly out of their “dynamo” theories, which assume that the fluid interior of a planet is like an electrical generator (dynamo) maintaining the magnetic field forever. The generator mechanism would be driven by heat in the interior, which would manifest itself by a significant heat outflow from the planet’s surface. However, astronomic measurements had shown that Uranus has very little heat outflow. Hence, by their theories, Uranus should not have a strong magnetic field. But it does!

On August 25, 1989, Voyager II passed by Neptune and found that it has a magnetic moment of 1.5 x 10²⁴ A m², again about in the middle of my prediction. Neptune has a significant heat outflow, so dynamo theorists expected it to have a field as strong as the one I predicted. Thus for Neptune, the creationist and evolutionist theories did equally well, as far as predicting the strength of the field is concerned. However, in other aspects of the magnetic field, Neptune gave the dynamo theorists a rude surprise.

Humphreys extrapolated his predictions based on the creation narratives in Genesis, taken in straightforward fashion.

You can catch up on Dr. Russ Humphrey’s bio and credentials here:

http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

Related articles

• Why Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Wonky (sott.net)
• Mercury’s Magnetic Field Measured by MESSENGER Orbiter (spacedaily.com)
• Finnish engineers use earth’s magnetic field for indoor map navigation (venturebeat.com)
• Researchers find cells that move in response to Earth’s magnetic field (phys.org)
• Likely Source of Animals’ Magnetic Sense Identified (livescience.com)
• All retrogrades are not created equal… (return2thesource.wordpress.com)

What’s behind the record heat? | Fox News

A sunspot viewed close-up in ultraviolet light, taken by the TRACE spacecraft (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fox News should develop an alternative news source and drop AP. This one about the record heat looks identical to one getting printed all over the place, with a couple of word changes maybe, and maybe they got it from Live Science.

What should puzzle us, or get our suspicion antennae aquiver, is why, in a report about record heat, they didn’t even think about including a mention about the record sunspot energy this year:

What’s behind the record heat? | Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/?intcmp=features

At the next link, we find that back in March of 2006 NASA itself was saying that a solar maximum would probably start building in 2010 and 2011 and solar physicist David Hathaway says would most likely hit maximum during 2012 –this year of record heat:

From http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!

Right: The sun’s “great conveyor belt.” [Larger
image]

All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”

When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”

Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.

“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”

Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.

Good smart and honest reporters should be laughing the latest attempt to blame carbon dioxide on Earth for record heat obviously coming from the sun itself.

No wonder the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution held such high esteem for a truly educated and informed people.

Published at WSJ: Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Sixteen very prominent scientists have signed a letter published by the Wall Street Journal demolishing the call for killing the economy with decarbonization in the name of global warming:

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming – WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Bully for them. Read the article. A new blow to Orwellian thought-control myths.

Related articles

• Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• New Top Scientists’ Statement: ‘No Need to Panic About Global Warming’ (truthsupport.wordpress.com)
• Scientists: Chill on global warming (junkscience.com)
• No Need to Panic About Global Warming (chimalaya.org)
• The Verdict Is In…Global Warming Is A Hoax (gds44.wordpress.com)
• The Verdict Is In…Global Warming Is A Hoax (thatmrgguy.wordpress.com)
• 16 scientists explain why global warming is not a threat (winteryknight.wordpress.com)

TrueOrigin Law of nature ‘not so constant’ after all

Law of nature ‘not so constant’ after all
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/02/3353491.htm

Take note that as quickly as the second paragraph, they subtly divulge one common thread that runs through a lot of the thinking of science today, and that it relates to the “true origins” discussion:

Professor John Webb, from the University of New South Wales, and colleagues, say their findings could help explain why it was possible for life to develop on Earth but perhaps not in other parts of the universe.

Then further on:

“The answer may be that other regions of the universe are not quite so favourable for life and the laws of physics we measure in our part of the universe are merely ‘local by-laws’, in which case it is no particular surprise to find life here.”

See, they know, somewhere inside, that Guillermo Gonzalez was right in his book, The Privileged Planet, that we are in a unique place with a very unique combination of conditions in a very special universe that has a design that “appears to be” intended for life. Here they discover yet another way that Guillermo Gonzalez is absolutely right on with the main idea of the book, and yet they do a pretend ho-hum, that explains it, an intellectually nervous kind of reaction.

The anthropic principle –and the privileged planet principle– is a big monster for them hovering over their shoulders in all the science they do, and they’re trying to exorcise the ghost and they keep failing miserably, and they know it. But they keep on cheering themselves on, keeping hope alive.

The physics of the universe, the configuration of the local spacial neighborhood and the universe itself, the confluence of conditions for our planet, everything points to a designed Creation.

2 Corinthians 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.