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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 19 by benchwarmer]

Because those that believe in naturalism have not tenable theory. Unless you would like to enlighten us of a successful naturalistic theory.

So you are are attempting to inform me that my theory is make believe. When it has made successful observable predictions. And any naturalistic theory cannot make successful observational predictions. Really.

Look at post 20

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 20 by EarthScienceguy]

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

Of course ... more whack-a-mole. This time it is lithium and population III stars. Your tactic seems to be that when you can't defend one claim you just quit and bring up another one from some creationist website. Here's some information on the lithium situation (which evidently is no longer a "problem"):

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/L14/meta

I've already mentioned that I have no interest in debating the big bang hypothesis. Start with the formation of the earth 4.6 billion years ago and we can go from there. Of course, since you titled this OP "The solar system is 6,000 years old", it hardly seems relevant for you to be arguing about the big bang!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 22 by DrNoGods]

Your tactic seems to be that when you can't defend one claim you just quit and bring up another one from some creationist website.

What have I not defended? I answered all of your comments.

Start with the formation of the earth 4.6 billion years ago and we can go from there.

Start there then it still doesn't work.

There is still the lithium problem.

There is still the no population III stars problem.

There is still the problem of stars and galaxies older than the supposed age of the universe.

There is still the time heat problem.

There is still the problem of failure to predict dark matter.

There is still the problem of a consistent 2.7 degree Kelvin temp of the CMB.

Start at t= .000001 sec. it still doesn't work. Start at t = 1 sec still doesn't.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 22 by DrNoGods]

Start with the formation of the earth 4.6 billion years ago and we can go from there.

Ok, I will start here.

There is the accretion problem. It doesn't work.

There is the solar radiation problem. There is not enough.

There are the problems with stellar evolution in general. Here is a whole paper from Harvard with some of the problems. http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/2002ESA ... 7.000.html

Start there "4-6 billion years ago" then.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]

There is the accretion problem. It doesn't work.

What accretion problem? And what doesn't work?

There is the solar radiation problem. There is not enough.

What solar radiation problem? There isn't enough solar radiation for what?

There are the problems with stellar evolution in general.

What does stellar evolution have to do with Humphrey's water balls nonsense (the OP), or events on earth starting 4.6 billion years ago?

You seem to be picking various open research issues like dark energy and dark matter, or the lithium issue (which isn't an unsolved problem anymore so you can chunk that one), and claiming that because science has not yet solved them that this is some failure of science. There are plenty of unsolved problems (eg. origin of life on earth) that are simply open research areas that people continue to work on. Just because some problem hasn't been solved yet doesn't mean it never will, or that the solution defaults to some god is responsible.

Science hasn't explained "everything" and probably never will, but it is certainly far better at it than religious make believe which has never predicted or explained anything in the real world any more than Nostradamus or psychics have.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 25 by DrNoGods]

What accretion problem? And what doesn't work?

Accretion does not happen under acceleration. This is why the particles in the rings of Saturn are becoming smaller and not larger. And do you know what is under constant acceleration an object that is orbiting another object.

What solar radiation problem? There isn't enough solar radiation for what?

Not to freeze the planet. There is evidence of liquid water on the surface as far back as some supposed 4.2 billion years ago. The sun would have been a red dwarf. This is called the faint sun paradox.

What does stellar evolution have to do with Humphrey's water balls nonsense (the OP), or events on earth starting 4.6 billion years ago?

The sun was not bright enough to heat the earth 4.6 billion years ago.

You seem to be picking various open research issues like dark energy and dark matter, or the lithium issue (which isn't an unsolved problem anymore so you can chunk that one),

Nope just problems our theories can explain and yours can't. That is I say naturalistic theories are archaic and backward. If you want to about dark mater and dark energies we have theories that can explain these along with the cosmological constant problem. Along with why the gravitron has not been discovered.

and claiming that because science has not yet solved them that this is some failure of science.

Why would I call this a failure of science?
1. Christians are the ones that developed the scientific method in order to know God better by examining the creation that He made.
2. I would call it a failure of naturalistic science assumptions.

Science hasn't explained "everything" and probably never will, but it is certainly far better at it than religious make believe which has never predicted or explained anything in the real world any more than Nostradamus or psychics have.

Our theories do explain much more than naturalistic theories and they do make better predictions than naturalistic theories.

I already mentioned this one about the magnetic fields.
1. We have creation theories that predicted rounded rocks on comets.
2. Water on asteroids.
3. Salt water on Mars.
4. Magnetic fields of all the planets and stars and even exsotic objects.
5. Large volumes of salt water under major mountains
6. Carbon 14 in diamonds
7. Pluto system including that it is comprised of rounded boulders, water, salts, silicates, crystalline silicates, limestone, clay, cubanite, olivine, iron, nickel, organics including amino acids,

Observations that are mysteries to Naturalistic theories are Predicted creationist theories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by EarthScienceguy]

Accretion does not happen under acceleration.

Sure it can (electrostatics). A simple experiment with bags of salt, sugar or coffee grounds proved this on the space shuttle.

Our theories do explain much more than naturalistic theories and they do make better predictions than naturalistic theories.

Right ... like Humphrey's paper mentioned in the OP for this thread which is complete bunk as it is based on the inexplicable actions of a god to create the initial conditions, making everything else in the paper completely meaningless. Do you call this kind of nonsense science, or development of proper theories?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 27 by DrNoGods]

Sure it can (electrostatics). A simple experiment with bags of salt, sugar or coffee grounds proved this on the space shuttle.

Oh! I was so hoping you would bring this up. What would happen if you shake bag. They would break up. The key is acceleration. I am not saying that object would not come together if they were going a constant velocity. Like your salt, sugar and coffee recipe would do. In fact we have theories that are dependent on accretion happening at constant velocities. But orbiting objects are not under constant velocity they are under constant acceleration. And that is why the accretion theory for forming planets in not possible.

Right ... like Humphrey's paper mentioned in the OP for this thread which is complete bunk as it is based on the inexplicable actions of a god to create the initial conditions, making everything else in the paper completely meaningless. Do you call this kind of nonsense science, or development of proper theories?

Again, your theories start out with a made up multiverse. And if you follow the math on that crazy theory gives an universe in which we are all make believe. Talk about crazy theories. Naturalist theories start with nothing. Nothing no energy, no space nothing. That is crazy. I will keep my God thank you very much.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]

The key is acceleration.

And what do you think the shuttle was doing as it was in ORBIT around the earth?

Again, your theories start out with a made up multiverse.

What on earth are you talking about now? And what is "your theories"? The only subject where multiverses are discussed is theoretical physics. Do you think that has any bearing on evolution, or the chemistry, physics and mathematics that are practiced every day to create our technology, solve engineering problems, design drugs, build structures, etc.?

Naturalist theories start with nothing. Nothing no energy, no space nothing. That is crazy.

What? Have you started the weekend parting early?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
The key is acceleration.

And what do you think the shuttle was doing as it was in ORBIT around the earth?

Just to clarify so you don't run off on another tangent ... the space shuttle accelerated getting to orbit, but once in an established orbit it was no longer accelerating but moving at a constant velocity of about 7,860 m/s. Similarly, particles orbiting the sun in an accretion disk would also not be accelerating in general. They need an orbital velocity high enough to counter the gravitational pull of the sun, but they don't need acceleration once a stable orbit is established.