The solar system is 6,000 years old. reset

[EarthScienceguy]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the voyager flew by them in the late 1980's. He based his theory on a universe that is 6000 years old. Using the following equation.

Quote:
So the magnetic moment M at any time t after creation would be:

M = Mc exp(-t/T)

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

He later went on and used the same equations to predict Mercury's magnetic field decrease.


ADDED

In this theory 5 assumptions are made.

1. That the fifth fundamental force that there has to be create our universe is a living being that has characteristics different from man. (The fifth fundamental force has to be different than anything in this universe.)
Characteristics of the fifth fundamental force (from Sean Carroll’s (atheist cosmologist) description of the Characteristics the “mother universe would have to have)

a. Has to be eternal (There would be no such thing as time because time is a construct of this universe but what that would mean)

b. To be eternal especially as Carroll’s describes this universe would mean it must be all-powerful. Meaning that it could never lose energy. Anyway you slice it to create an infinite number of universe would mean that energy could not decrease. He would describe this as time running in both directions.

c. This universe would also have to be infinite to create an infinite number of universes.

d. There has to be a fifth force because the 4 fundamental forces of this universe are tied to the space of this universe. So if there is no space then there are no forces.

e. The fifth force would have to be different. Because even if the 4 fundamental forces do exist in this ‘mother universe,� they do not have to act as they do in this universe.

2. God made a ball of water as described in Genesis 1 with all of the protons in hydrogen spinning the same way. It would have to be hydrogen because it has but a single proton and proton spin in the nucleus is paired like electron spin is.

3. After the creation of the ball of water. The water molecules alignment would be broken creating great electrical currents in the ball of water.

4. Humphreys did not say this but experiments out of Russia say this can happen. That these currents that were created made all of the elements that we see today in a process known as a Z-pinch.

5. Then the God guided these atoms together to form life.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 7 by EarthScienceguy]

It was enough to create the all of the magnetic fields in the universe.

The universe? This is getting more ridiculous by the minute. The earth's magnetic field is about 5 x 10^-5 T (or 0.5 Gauss). The magnetic field of just one neutron star is about 10^8 T ... 13 orders of magnitude larger. Even using Humphrey's own comment that at "creation" the earth's field was 18x larger, this still leaves 12 orders of magnitude difference, and that's just for one neutron star.

Of course, the premise of Humphrey's argument is completely wrong (ie. the planets were all initially balls of H2O with all of the proton spins in the H atoms aligned), so anything he derives from that is utter nonsense. But again, why not just say that you have an omnipotent god being who can do anything, and he/she/it simply created rocky or gaseous planets and put them into orbits around a star, created life on one of them, etc. Why the efforts by AIG and other groups (that you are parroting) to try and justify the Genesis myths as being scientifically supported? What's the point, especially when, as in this Humphrey's example, he starts with a god-did-it event to create his initial premise (and so is not trying to hide the god magic anyway)?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 11 by DrNoGods]

The universe? This is getting more ridiculous by the minute. The earth's magnetic field is about 5 x 10^-5 T (or 0.5 Gauss). The magnetic field of just one neutron star is about 10^8 T ... 13 orders of magnitude larger. Even using Humphrey's own comment that at "creation" the earth's field was 18x larger, this still leaves 12 orders of magnitude difference, and that's just for one neutron star.

The large obliquities suggest that although these stars started out with fields given by equation the original equations, differential rotation brought about by strong convection has wound their flux around the stars hundreds of times (rather than tenfold as for the Sun, as shown previously), amplifying their flux and fields by the same factor (Parker, 1979). Unlike the case of
galaxies oppositely-directed lines of force would be in the opposite hemisphere, so that there would be no cancellation of flux by magnetic
reconnection. That would explain the large values of magnetic field. This explanation requires that in these stars, polarity reversals would take place much less frequently than in the Sun, so that the lines of force could be wound up many more turns.

Parker, E. N. (1979). Cosmical magnetic fields (pp. 440–441).
Oxford: Clarendon Press

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by EarthScienceguy]

The large obliquities suggest that although these stars started out with fields given by equation the original equations, differential rotation brought about by strong convection has wound their flux around the stars hundreds of times (rather than tenfold as for the Sun, as shown previously), amplifying their flux and fields by the same factor (Parker, 1979). Unlike the case of
galaxies oppositely-directed lines of force would be in the opposite hemisphere, so that there would be no cancellation of flux by magnetic
reconnection. That would explain the large values of magnetic field. This explanation requires that in these stars, polarity reversals would take place much less frequently than in the Sun, so that the lines of force could be wound up many more turns.

Pulling and stretching the candy is intrinsic to the texture of taffy, but it can be dangerous. Be very careful not to burn yourself when pulling taffy. Do not handle the candy until it is cool enough to touch, and beware that candy that feels cool on the surface can be burning hot underneath. Wear a pair of latex gloves (or two) while pulling candy, to prevent burns and overheating. If you do not wear gloves, make sure your hands are well-oiled so the sugar will not stick and burn your skin.

To begin pulling the candy, lift it from the work surface with an oiled scraper or spatula and push it into a cylinder. Stretch it between your hands. It will be soft and will sag in the middle.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by DrNoGods]

Am I supposed to understand that gerberich and what you are talking about?

An increase in magnetic fields because of torque is a known fact of science. Our own sun switches polarity about every 11 years or so. Because its magnetic field winds so tight that it cannot wind anymore.

This is called magnetic torque.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 14 by EarthScienceguy]

Am I supposed to understand that gerberich and what you are talking about?

This is called magnetic torque.

And what does this have to do with your claim that Humphrey's imaginary earth ball of H2O could produce all the magnetic fields in the universe (Post 7)?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 13 by DrNoGods]

Am I supposed to understand that gerberich and what you are talking about?

An increase in magnetic fields because of torque is a known fact of science. Our own sun switches polarity about every 11 years or so. Because its magnetic field winds so tight that it cannot wind anymore.

This is called magnetic torque.

So the torque of water-sphere-earth created a magnetic field powerful enough to fuse every element while simultaneously creating all the magnetic fields in the universe?

DrNoGods make sure you pull the taffy until it is light in color and stiff. This will indicate there are enough air bubbles inside to make it fluffy. Pulling taffy can take 15 to 60 minutes, depending upon the number of people you have pulling and the amount of taffy you are working with.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DeMotts]

You all make me laugh.

Magnetic Torque has nothing to do with creation theory. It comes out of astronomy.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 16 by DeMotts]

DrNoGods make sure you pull the taffy until it is light in color and stiff. This will indicate there are enough air bubbles inside to make it fluffy. Pulling taffy can take 15 to 60 minutes, depending upon the number of people you have pulling and the amount of taffy you are working with.

Thanks ... I'll pay attention to that detail on my next taffy pulling event. The joke was lost on ESG I'm afraid, but so is the lack of a connection between magnetic torque and a planet-sized ball of H2O creating all the magnetic fields in the entire universe. So probably best to drop that and continue this whack-a-mole game to see what the next crazy subject is.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 13 by DrNoGods]

Am I supposed to understand that gerberich and what you are talking about?

The irony here is quite palpable. Much like the consistency of incorrectly pulled taffy. The air introduced into a good taffy is far more useful than some of the hot air cut and pasted so far from creationist websites.

I agree with DrNoGods. Why the bamboozle with garbage 'science' when the entire house of cards rests on god magic? Just claim the god can do anything an be done with it. Spouting incorrect science does nothing but show lack of faith in the god's abilities to do whatever it wishes. Are we actually witnessing a lack of faith here rather than a theist confident in their god? Interesting...

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Whoa, really.

Would you like to share with us why there is a lack of lithium in the universe.

https://www.universetoday.com/133468/un ... m-problem/

Would you like to enlighten us with why there are no Population III starts.

Stars observed in galaxies were originally divided into two populations by Walter Baade in the 1940s. Although a more refined means of classifying stellar populations has since been established (according to whether they are found in the thin disk, thick disk, halo or bulge of the galaxy), astronomers have continued to coarsely classify stars as either Population I (Pop I, metal-rich) or Population II (Pop II, metal-poor). However, even the most metal-poor Pop II stars have metallicities (commonly denoted [Z/H]) far above that of the gas left over from the Big Bang.

I even helped you out with this article giving some tries at explaining this. The problem is naturalistic theory still falls apart because there is also a lack of lithium in the universe.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III

Would you care to help us understand how we can have a globular cluster and a star that we can observe that are older than the universe.


This is why I say why would we want to put anything in your archaic science journals whose theories they support cannot explain the observations we observe. How theories are much more robust they any stellar theories in the naturalistic make believe universe.

These are but three there are more.

Would you like to share with us what force made the universe we live in? The made up multiverse that cannot be observed.

I am not aware any prediction that the "Big Bang theory" has made that makes actual observational predictions.

The big bang's poor predictions track record is extensive as shown from its many failures including...
- the contradictions to the foundational predictions of homogeneity and isotropy
- the theory's failed prediction of an entire universe worth of antimatter
- the theory's failure to predict and the failure to find, a universe-worth of dark matter
- the failure to predict a universe worth of dark energy needed if the BB is correct
- the 2.7K CMB background radiation and the missing shadow of the CMB
- the retracted 2014 claims of detected big bang inflation gravity waves
- (the valid 2015 and 2016 claims of detected standard gravity waves)
- failed to predict inflation, another BB rescue device of questionable predictive value
- the claimed predictions of initial abundances of the elements, hydrogen, helium, etc.
- failures with magnetic monopoles, more on lithium, and the transparency problem
- the failure of BB nucleosynthesis to account for most of the universe: dark matter, etc.
- expansion, by post-dating expansion "discovery" and pre-dating the big bang, the theory could "predict" expansion
- the failure of the big bang to account for fine-tuning and its anti-science multiverse rescue device
- and dozens of other major failed predictions of the big bang.

And you try to tell me that my theory is make believe, really. Mine has actually made predictions that are proven by observations.