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 40 by EarthScienceguy]

I have no idea what you are trying to express here.

You made these (erroneous) comments in post 38"

"Further the volume of the world's oceans is 1.5 x 10^9 km3. Taking your volume of water 8.45 x 10^8 km3 / 1.5 x 10^9 km3 = .563

So that would mean that your little lake would be 56% of the world's oceans. The pacific is only 31% so this little body of water you are speaking would be almost twice as large as the pacific ocean."

I was responding to this since you clearly misunderstood micatals's post. He didn't say the lake was that volume (8.45 x 10^8 km3) ... he said that the amount of salt left was equivalent to evaporation of that much sea water. See the difference?

The units on the latent heat of vaporization is kj/kg. Evaporation does occur in the dark. Just put a glass of water in your closet and it will evaporate. It will evaporate at the same rate in the winter or in the summer as long as your heating and cooling system is keeping your home at the same temperature. So it does not matter whether it is by your furnace or not. All that matter is the heat energy striking the earth.

My point was that you did an over-simplistic calculation to arrive at 200 years. You did not consider day/night cycles, albedo (water vs. ice), rain or other flow into the lake, wind effects, sun angle, etc. These all impact evaporation rates as well as water input to the lake. You simply assumed the sun was shining on a clear day, fixed in the sky at maximum irradiation level, and stayed that way continuously, with 100% of the energy input going into heat of vaporization and with no rain or other input of water to the lake. Completely unrealistic.

I am sure that this is a very convincing argument especially when the only theory that can possibly explain the Grand Canyon is the Flood theory.

There is a field of science called Geology that properly explains the Grand Canyon. You need to read up on it and compare it to a 2000+ year old myth that has no evidence for its existence (just the opposite, in fact).

You have never heard of F = ma.

Yes ... high school physics class. Einstein showed that moving a mass at a velocity exceeding the speed of light would require infinite energy, so it was not possible. Newton's F = ma has no limit on a (= dv/dt). General Relativity is not just a reworking of Newton's equations. If you think that it is you don't understand anything about what General Relativity actually is. Why can't Newtonian physics explain the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury? Or the deflection of light by a massive body (photons have no mass)? Or why we have to adjust the clocks on GPS satellites to account for their speed? And many other examples.

His equations still made predictions that not one of your old Earth Series cannot do in the least.

Only every day in just about every field of endeavor. You can't make meaningful predictions from nonsense assumptions, as Humphrey's did. The fact that he got numerically reasonable numbers is because he created bogus assumptions to give him that in the first place, that would result in an exponential decay that he wanted to show a 6000 year old universe. He took that number and then worked up some ridiculous set of initial conditions, with a fudge factor "k" that he could then tweak to get what he wanted.

That isn't a theory that makes predictions ... it is starting with the conclusion, then inventing initial conditions with no basis in reality to try and make it all work. He even says that there is nothing in "scripture" to justify the assumption that all the nuclear spins were aligned ... he just made that up and said "god did it." How can you possibly believe that this kind of thing has any validity whatsoever? Same with Noah's flood and all of the evidence for it that would be virtually everywhere if it actually happened some 4500 years ago as the bible indicates, but is nowhere to be found.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 41 by DrNoGods]

I was responding to this since you clearly misunderstood micatals's post. He didn't say the lake was that volume (8.45 x 10^8 km3) ... he said that the amount of salt left was equivalent to evaporation of that much sea water. See the difference?

Not really because he wrote

this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. "

I would know of no other meaning than the one I exp

My point was that you did an over-simplistic calculation to arrive at 200 years. You did not consider day/night cycles, albedo (water vs. ice), rain or other flow into the lake, wind effects, sun angle, etc. These all impact evaporation rates as well as water input to the lake. You simply assumed the sun was shining on a clear day, fixed in the sky at maximum irradiation level, and stayed that way continuously, with 100% of the energy input going into heat of vaporization and with no rain or other input of water to the lake. Completely unrealistic.

My point was it would not even take close to millions of years or even thousands of years. But more like hundreds of years.

There is a field of science called Geology that properly explains the Grand Canyon. You need to read up on it and compare it to a 2000+ year old myth that has no evidence for its existence (just the opposite, in fact).

Well, they are having more than just a little trouble with the problems I shared in post 37.

Only every day in just about every field of endeavor. You can't make meaningful predictions from nonsense assumptions, as Humphrey's did. The fact that he got numerically reasonable numbers is because he created bogus assumptions to give him that in the first place, that would result in an exponential decay that he wanted to show a 6000 year old universe. He took that number and then worked up some ridiculous set of initial conditions, with a fudge factor "k" that he could then tweak to get what he wanted.

Except in the case of predicting the magnetic fields all astronomical bodies in the heavens. There is only one theory that can do that. Do you have any idea why that might be?

That isn't a theory that makes predictions ... it is starting with the conclusion, then inventing initial conditions with no basis in reality to try and make it all work. He even says that there is nothing in "scripture" to justify the assumption that all the nuclear spins were aligned ... he just made that up and said "god did it." How can you possibly believe that this kind of thing has any validity whatsoever? Same with Noah's flood and all of the evidence for it that would be virtually everywhere if it actually happened some 4500 years ago as the bible indicates, but is nowhere to be found.

The Voyager flyby of Uranus was in 1986. The paper above is from 1984. His prediction was very different than any prediction leading up to the actual flyby of Uranus. How would this fail to be an actual prediction? Why has this method of determining magnetic fields work time and time again. Mercury, Neptune, Mars, Venus and even our own moon.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by EarthScienceguy]

I would know of no other meaning than the one I exp

Not sure what "exp" is supposed to mean there, but you equated the equivalent volume of seawater that would have to be evaporated to produce the amount of salt seen, with the volume of the lake itself, and the two are completely different things. But if you don't get it then you don't get it.

Code: Select all

My point was it would not even take close to millions of years or even thousands of years. But more like hundreds of years.

Your 200 year number came from a completely wrong assessment of how evaporation of water from a lake actually works, so it has no meaning and could easily be out 2 or more orders of magnitude. The sun does not sit at a fixed point in a clear sky, 24/7, with 100% of all energy from it hitting the lake surface and contributing to heat of vaporization. And there are many other factors that impact net evaporation rates which you ignored completely. So you did not show that it could have been done in hundreds of years.

Well, they are having more than just a little trouble with the problems I shared in post 37.

Not in reality ... just in the make believe world you want to live in where religious myths, and bad pseudoscience like Humphrey's puts out, take precedence over actual science.

Except in the case of predicting the magnetic fields all astronomical bodies in the heavens. There is only one theory that can do that. Do you have any idea why that might be?

What Humphrey's did is not science or a theory of anything legitimate. You can't keep ignoring the fact that his two primary starting assumptions (that celestial bodies start out as balls of H2O, and that their hydrogen nuclei all have their spins aligned) has no basis in reality and as a result anything he derives using those assumptions is pure nonsense. It is puzzling why you can't see that these two assumptions are not legitimate, but instead continue to claim that he has actually predicted something useful and formulated a scientific theory. Just another example that you prefer a make believe world rather than the real world.

The Voyager flyby of Uranus was in 1986. The paper above is from 1984. His prediction was very different than any prediction leading up to the actual flyby of Uranus. How would this fail to be an actual prediction? Why has this method of determining magnetic fields work time and time again. Mercury, Neptune, Mars, Venus and even our own moon.

Again, his initial two assumptions are wrong, so anything he derives from his "theory" is nonsense. If there happens to be some rough agreement with observations it is an accident, but with adjustable fudge factors you can always produce any numbers you like.

If you can justify his two basic assumptions for initial conditions (balls of H2O with all of the H nuclear spins aligned) then you might have a case. Can you do that? Of course not (and neither can Humphrey's without having his favorite god pull a magic trick). Show that his initial two assumptions have merit, or admit that the whole thing falls apart.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Your 200 year number came from a completely wrong assessment of how evaporation of water from a lake actually works, so it has no meaning and could easily be out 2 or more orders of magnitude. The sun does not sit at a fixed point in a clear sky, 24/7, with 100% of all energy from it hitting the lake surface and contributing to heat of vaporization. And there are many other factors that impact net evaporation rates which you ignored completely. So you did not show that it could have been done in hundreds of years.

Again evaporation does occur at night also, more during the day but also at night. I also did not subtract out the mass of the salt. Granted that would not reduce the mass by any orders of magnitude but still I left it in there.

Not this is also assuming that this lake was at the same salinity of the oceans today. Creation theory predicts that there would be large bodies of water like this with a very high salt content after the flood much like the Dead sea (salinity of 33%) and the Great Salt lake (salinity 5-27%).

Both the Dead sea and The Great Salt lake are both endanger of drying up. Large bodies of water drying up

Not in reality ... just in the make believe world you want to live in where religious myths, and bad pseudoscience like Humphrey's puts out, take precedence over actual science.

Really the Colorado river with head waters lower than the Kaibab plateau travels down hill to rider point 3000 feet below the Kaibab plateau. How does water travel uphill 3000 feet? I would call that a problem.

Now on top of the Kaibab Plateau is a layer of igneous rock in which old Earth believers date as 6 million years old. That means the Grand canyon could not be older than 6 million years. This is a problem

1. The land around the Grand canyon would have to be much higher than the Kaibab plateau to give a river flow fast enough to cut the Grand Canyon gorge.

2. If the land around the Grand Canyon was much higher in the past (3000 +). Where did all of the dirt and rock go?

And that is just one of the problems.

What Humphrey's did is not science or a theory of anything legitimate. You can't keep ignoring the fact that his two primary starting assumptions (that celestial bodies start out as balls of H2O, and that their hydrogen nuclei all have their spins aligned) has no basis in reality and as a result anything he derives using those assumptions is pure nonsense. It is puzzling why you can't see that these two assumptions are not legitimate, but instead continue to claim that he has actually predicted something useful and formulated a scientific theory. Just another example that you prefer a make believe world rather than the real world.

Again, you do not have to agree with the assumptions. It just has to be explain how these assumptions gave the correct results. If these assumptions gave only one correct answer this theory gives the correct answer every time. Even predicting when planets would have magnetic fields generated by the core and when they would not have magnetic fields generated by the core.

This is the only theory out there that can make these types of accurate predictions time and time again.

Quote:
The Voyager flyby of Uranus was in 1986. The paper above is from 1984. His prediction was very different than any prediction leading up to the actual flyby of Uranus. How would this fail to be an actual prediction? Why has this method of determining magnetic fields work time and time again. Mercury, Neptune, Mars, Venus and even our own moon.

If you can justify his two basic assumptions for initial conditions (balls of H2O with all of the H nuclear spins aligned) then you might have a case. Can you do that? Of course not (and neither can Humphrey's without having his favorite god pull a magic trick). Show that his initial two assumptions have merit, or admit that the whole thing falls apart.

No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation. We could not be there there was not a such thing as 3 dimensional space before the creation of the universe.

You have bases for actually saying that initial assumptions are incorrect but there is no actual observation of the beginning of the universe nor can there ever be. Every immense age theory of the universe that goes through the original singularity produces a non material universe.

So in order to actually have matter in a universe like it appears we have. Humphrey's theory is the only game in town.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 44 by EarthScienceguy]

And that is just one of the problems.

All these creationists claims about the Grand Canyon have been debunked too many times to beat that dead horse again. Kent Hovind loved to talk about this issue, and his son and other creationists, but none of the issues you bring up (or those guys) are problems for geology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau#Geology

It just has to be explain how these assumptions gave the correct results.

No ... that is not science! I can make up all kinds of scenarios where I can create initial conditions that result in reasonable numbers for some model of a process. But if those initial conditions can be shown to be WRONG (as Humphrey's assumptions can), then anything derived from my model is garbage. It doesn't matter if he happens to produce reasonable numbers with a false set of assumptions and a fudge factor, if the initial assumptions are demonstrably false then the model is invalid. Humphrey's started with the answer he wanted, then created a completely ficticious model to get this answer. It is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the definition.

No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation. We could not be there there was not a such thing as 3 dimensional space before the creation of the universe.

We're not talking about the formation of the universe ... we're talking about the formation of planets (and moons) in our own solar system. You keep bringing up stuff about the big bang and formation of the universe, in discussions that have nothing at all to do with that issue. So I take it you are dodging the question again? Humphrey's initial conditions are false ... planets did not begin as balls of H2O, and there is no reason to believe that even if they did all the nuclear spins of the H atoms would be aligned. Therefore, his "theory" is nonsense.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 45 by DrNoGods]

All these creationists claims about the Grand Canyon have been debunked too many times to beat that dead horse again. Kent Hovind loved to talk about this issue, and his son and other creationists, but none of the issues you bring up (or those guys) are problems for geology.

From your wiki article.

At the same time, streams flowed from highlands in central Arizona north and across what is today the western Grand Canyon, possibly feeding a larger river.[63] The mechanism by which the ancestral Lower Colorado River captured this drainage and the drainage from much of the rest of the Colorado Plateau is not known. Possible explanations include headward erosion or a broken natural dam of a lake or river.[63] Whatever the cause, the Lower Colorado probably captured the landlocked Upper Colorado somewhere west of the Kaibab Uplift.[62] The much larger drainage area and yet steeper stream gradient helped to further accelerate downcutting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

It is not even known what caused the Colorado Plateau to rise.

The two geodynamic studies in this issue of
Geology underscore the probable complexity of
the plateau’s history. They especially highlight
the unlikelihood of the entire plateau undergoing
a single spatially uniform phase of surface uplift,
and emphasize the potential for significant geographic
and temporal heterogeneity in elevation
gain. Such a history would only exacerbate the
challenge of accurately reconstructing the plateau’s
evolution from the geological record. Perhaps
some of the geological data that seemingly
conflict in the context of simpler uplift models
can be reconciled when evaluated in the framework
of the more complex patterns of elevation
gain predicted by these geodynamic studies.
The inventive new approaches for deciphering
the plateau’s history coupled with testable predictions
from geodynamic models are yielding
fresh insights into the perplexing story behind
the topographic rise of the Colorado Plateau.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/671.p ... 8yWx3x7FPs

Try again. Most people who believe in the old age theory of the Earth, also believe their position is more solid that it is.


Quote:
It just has to be explain how these assumptions gave the correct results.

No ... that is not science! I can make up all kinds of scenarios where I can create initial conditions that result in reasonable numbers for some model of a process. But if those initial conditions can be shown to be WRONG (as Humphrey's assumptions can), then anything derived from my model is garbage. It doesn't matter if he happens to produce reasonable numbers with a false set of assumptions and a fudge factor, if the initial assumptions are demonstrably false then the model is invalid. Humphrey's started with the answer he wanted, then created a completely fictitious model to get this answer. It is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the definition.

The correct answer was not even known yet, so how could he have done what you were saying.

His equations are very specific to the original value of the magnetic field and how those fields are change.

The magnetic field he calculated is done by known laws of physics and values that can be falsified. That is unlike any theory that attempts to describe the universe as a result of something in the multiverse giving this universe a kick start into it's existence.

Quote:
No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation. We could not be there there was not a such thing as 3 dimensional space before the creation of the universe.

We're not talking about the formation of the universe ... we're talking about the formation of planets (and moons) in our own solar system. You keep bringing up stuff about the big bang and formation of the universe, in discussions that have nothing at all to do with that issue. So I take it you are dodging the question again? Humphrey's initial conditions are false ... planets did not begin as balls of H2O,

The planets did not have to start out as a ball of water in his theory. God did not even have to create the elements ex nihilo. The elements could have been produced by the laws of physics that God put in place to govern the matter of this universe. I keep going back to creation because you keep saying planets started out as water. They did not need to start out as water

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 45 by DrNoGods]

All these creationists claims about the Grand Canyon have been debunked too many times to beat that dead horse again. Kent Hovind loved to talk about this issue, and his son and other creationists, but none of the issues you bring up (or those guys) are problems for geology.

From your wiki article.

At the same time, streams flowed from highlands in central Arizona north and across what is today the western Grand Canyon, possibly feeding a larger river.[63] The mechanism by which the ancestral Lower Colorado River captured this drainage and the drainage from much of the rest of the Colorado Plateau is not known. Possible explanations include headward erosion or a broken natural dam of a lake or river.[63] Whatever the cause, the Lower Colorado probably captured the landlocked Upper Colorado somewhere west of the Kaibab Uplift.[62] The much larger drainage area and yet steeper stream gradient helped to further accelerate downcutting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

It is not even known what caused the Colorado Plateau to rise.

The two geodynamic studies in this issue of
Geology underscore the probable complexity of
the plateau’s history. They especially highlight
the unlikelihood of the entire plateau undergoing
a single spatially uniform phase of surface uplift,
and emphasize the potential for significant geographic
and temporal heterogeneity in elevation
gain. Such a history would only exacerbate the
challenge of accurately reconstructing the plateau’s
evolution from the geological record. Perhaps
some of the geological data that seemingly
conflict in the context of simpler uplift models
can be reconciled when evaluated in the framework
of the more complex patterns of elevation
gain predicted by these geodynamic studies.
The inventive new approaches for deciphering
the plateau’s history coupled with testable predictions
from geodynamic models are yielding
fresh insights into the perplexing story behind
the topographic rise of the Colorado Plateau.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/671.p ... 8yWx3x7FPs

Try again. Most people who believe in the old age theory of the Earth, also believe their position is more solid that it is.


Quote:
It just has to be explain how these assumptions gave the correct results.

No ... that is not science! I can make up all kinds of scenarios where I can create initial conditions that result in reasonable numbers for some model of a process. But if those initial conditions can be shown to be WRONG (as Humphrey's assumptions can), then anything derived from my model is garbage. It doesn't matter if he happens to produce reasonable numbers with a false set of assumptions and a fudge factor, if the initial assumptions are demonstrably false then the model is invalid. Humphrey's started with the answer he wanted, then created a completely fictitious model to get this answer. It is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the definition.

The correct answer was not even known yet, so how could he have done what you were saying.

His equations are very specific to the original value of the magnetic field and how those fields are change.

The magnetic field he calculated is done by known laws of physics and values that can be falsified. That is unlike any theory that attempts to describe the universe as a result of something in the multiverse giving this universe a kick start into it's existence.

Quote:
No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation. We could not be there there was not a such thing as 3 dimensional space before the creation of the universe.

We're not talking about the formation of the universe ... we're talking about the formation of planets (and moons) in our own solar system. You keep bringing up stuff about the big bang and formation of the universe, in discussions that have nothing at all to do with that issue. So I take it you are dodging the question again? Humphrey's initial conditions are false ... planets did not begin as balls of H2O,

The planets did not have to start out as a ball of water in his theory. God did not even have to create the elements ex nihilo. The elements could have been produced by the laws of physics that God put in place to govern the matter of this universe. I keep going back to creation because you keep saying planets started out as water. They did not need to start out as water

and there is no reason to believe that even if they did all the nuclear spins of the H atoms would be aligned. Therefore, his "theory" is nonsense.

There is because it gives accurate predictions of the physical world in which we live.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 46 by EarthScienceguy]

It is not even known what caused the Colorado Plateau to rise.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131812.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ithosphere

The correct answer was not even known yet, so how could he have done what you were saying.

His equations are very specific to the original value of the magnetic field and how those fields are change.

It was known for the earth, long before Humphrey's paper in 1984. He even shows a chart of the decay in magnetic moment over the prior 150 years (from measurements). Do you think he would have pushed this nonsense if his calculated number didn't just happen to agree with an already known number? And he assumes a 5980 year old earth for his value for t in Eqn. 5. But none of this matters because his original assumption that the planets were balls of H2O is wrong, and his assumption that the nuclear spins of the H atoms were all aligned is wrong. So anything he derives from those demonstrably wrong assumptions is meaningless by definition. Don't you see that? You can't derive scientifically valid results from completely fabricated and erroneous initial conditions ... that is not how science works.

That is unlike any theory that attempts to describe the universe as a result of something in the multiverse giving this universe a kick start into it's existence.

And again ... this has absolutely nothing to do with planet formation in our solar system.

No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation

So nothing that ever happened in history prior to the existence of humans can be known because a human wasn't there to directly see it? Right ... that is even crazier than Humphrey's "theory." Do you believe that dinosaurs existed?

The planets did not have to start out as a ball of water in his theory ... I keep going back to creation because you keep saying planets started out as water. They did not need to start out as water.

What? Did you even read his paper? This is the entire basis of his "theory." So he DOES require that the planets all started out as balls of H2O. Here is his actual statement under the heading "Water: The Raw Material of Creation":

"To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water."

(underline mine). This is how he gets the number of H atoms present in order to then do his calculations. Why are you trying to defend this nonsense if you didn't even read the paper?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Quote:
It is not even known what caused the Colorado Plateau to rise.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131812.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... lateau_Upl...

This sounds an awful lot like Walt Browns theory. The only difference is Walt gives a reason for the initiation of this process and the theory that you are proposing does not.

Walt Brown theory of uplift.

The Kaibab Plateau is more correctly called the Kaibab Upwarp, because its sedimentary layers arch upward.44 Its uplift must be seen in the context of the rising of the much larger Colorado Plateau—a true plateau, because its layers are horizontal. [See the italicized definition of a plateau on page 221.] Likewise, the rising Colorado Plateau must be seen in the context of the slow settling of the much heavier Rocky Mountains, which had been rapidly buckled upward during the compression event near the end of the flood. (Pages 113–150 summarize the hydroplate theory.)

As the Rocky Mountains slowly settled into the upper mantle, rock below was crushed, melted by sliding friction, and injected between the former floor and roof of the subterranean water chamber where resisting forces were weakest.43 The Colorado Plateau then rose as if it were resting on thousands of hydraulic lifts. Below the earth’s surface, that liquid rock (magma) lubricated and swept the flow of crushed rocks away from the flanks of the sinking Rockies.45 Each narrow channel of flowing rocks and magma constituted one “hydraulic lift.� Most of the energy expended by the sinking Rockies was ultimately converted into heat and the lifting of the Colorado Plateau.

The Colorado Plateau did not rise as one solid block, because the pressure below grew at different rates at thousands of locations. Whenever the pressure at one location became large enough to fracture the rock above, a sudden but limited upward jerk occurred. Each fracture event was an earthquake, and each sliding surface was a fault. Thousands of faults have been identified and mapped on the Colorado Plateau. Undoubtedly, thousands more are hidden under the soil. Many uplifted and tipped blocks, some hundreds of square miles in area (such as Utah’s Grand Staircase), dramatically show what happened.

Why was the uplift limited? Sometimes the irregular sides of a rising block wedged against an adjacent block. In most cases, magma (“hydraulic fluid�) was not generated fast enough to replace magma losses and to keep the channels (“hydraulic lines�) fully pressurized. For example, some magma escaped into cracks or up to the earth’s surface as volcanoes or lava flows. [Page 117 lists some long-standing mysteries concerning “Volcanoes and Lava� that the hydroplate theory explains.] At least 76 lava flows and numerous volcanoes are in the Grand Canyon area.46 Finally, the higher a block rose, the greater the pressure needed to lift it higher. Therefore, the magma below (containing dissolved water47) spread laterally, so adjacent blocks which had not risen as much were lifted instead. Spreading magma was like an expanding ink spot. Thus, the Colorado Plateau—and other plateaus—are generally circular.

Walt wrote his theory in the 80's and 90's.

Your theory

The invading asthenosphere is two-faced. Deep in the upper mantle, between about 60 and 185 miles down, (60 miles is Walt's depth of his plates)
it's usually slightly less dense and much less viscous than the overlying mantle lithosphere of the tectonic plates; the plates there can move over its malleable surface.

But when the asthenosphere finds a means to, No mechanism mentioned of why this would be.

it can invade the lithosphere and erode it from the bottom up. The partially molten material expands and cools as it flows upward. It infiltrates the stronger lithosphere, where it solidifies and makes the brittle crust and uppermost mantle heavy enough to break away and sink. The buoyant asthenosphere then fills the space left above, where it expands and thus lifts the plateau.

"We had to find a trigger to cause the lithosphere to become dense enough to fall off," Levander said. The partially molten asthenosphere is "hot and somewhat buoyant, and if there's a topographic gradient along the asthenosphere's upper surface, as there is under the Colorado Plateau, the asthenosphere will flow with it and undergo a small amount of decompression melting as it rises."

It melts enough, he said, to infiltrate the base of the lithosphere and solidify, "and it's at such a depth that it freezes as a dense phase. The heat from the invading melts also reduces the viscosity of the mantle lithosphere, making it flow more readily. At some point, the base of the lithosphere exceeds the density of the asthenosphere underneath and starts to drip."

Boy the Asthenosphere seems kind of moody if you ask me. It does this only when it wants to. Oh, that's right it finds a way to make it happen. That's convincing.

Quote:
The correct answer was not even known yet, so how could he have done what you were saying.

His equations are very specific to the original value of the magnetic field and how those fields are change.

It was known for the earth, long before Humphrey's paper in 1984. He even shows a chart of the decay in magnetic moment over the prior 150 years (from measurements). Do you think he would have pushed this nonsense if his calculated number didn't just happen to agree with an already known number? And he assumes a 5980 year old earth for his value for t in Eqn. 5. But none of this matters because his original assumption that the planets were balls of H2O is wrong, and his assumption that the nuclear spins of the H atoms were all aligned is wrong. So anything he derives from those demonstrably wrong assumptions is meaningless by definition. Don't you see that? You can't derive scientifically valid results from completely fabricated and erroneous initial conditions ... that is not how science works.

Oh, you did read it!!

But calibrating your equation with a known value is nothing new. The gravitational constant did not come out of an actual mathematical calculation. F = m1m2/d2 did but G did not. G was calculated from known values. The same is true for k in Coulomb's law.

Quote:
That is unlike any theory that attempts to describe the universe as a result of something in the multiverse giving this universe a kick start into it's existence.


And again ... this has absolutely nothing to do with planet formation in our solar system.

Quote:
No, one can "prove" anything about the formation of the universe. Because no human was there to witness creation

So nothing that ever happened in history prior to the existence of humans can be known because a human wasn't there to directly see it? Right ... that is even crazier than Humphrey's "theory." Do you believe that dinosaurs existed?

We can see large animals with certain bone features did exist because we have physical evidence of that. We can prove nothing of their behavior. Nothing of how they interacted with each other. And nothing about when they roamed the Earth.

We know a universe exist. We know matter exist in the universe, at least I know that. Those are the only observations that we can make.

Quote:
The planets did not have to start out as a ball of water in his theory ... I keep going back to creation because you keep saying planets started out as water. They did not need to start out as water.


What? Did you even read his paper? This is the entire basis of his "theory." So he DOES require that the planets all started out as balls of H2O. Here is his actual statement under the heading "Water: The Raw Material of Creation":

"To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water."

(underline mine). This is how he gets the number of H atoms present in order to then do his calculations. Why are you trying to defend this nonsense if you didn't even read the paper?

This is the point where not enough research has been done to answer all the questions you are going to have. There are only a handful of people working on this details of planet formation is not going to be real precise.

Departing from his theory at this point

The original material was water. Everything started out as water. But as currents went through the water the Z-pinch process made the heavier elements.

I believe it can be shown that the heavier atoms mass can show how the sun and planets were formed in a non-rotating environment and then set in motion. Humphrey's galaxy formations starts out like that. I believe it can be shown that planets will be produced in this type of environment also.

One of the reasons I believe this is most of the angular momentum of the solar system is in the planets and not the largest object the sun.

He did not put that in his paper but he should have.

Before you start on how planetary formation is a known process let me tell you there are many problems with current planetary formation theory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 48 by EarthScienceguy]

But calibrating your equation with a known value is nothing new.

Sure, but that's not what Humphrey's did. He created initial conditions purely from fantasy (balls of H2O with all the H atom nuclear spins aligned), then assumed an age for the earth that is 6 orders of magnitude too small, so he could make his predetermined point. His fudge factor (k) was another convenience. If his initial conditions had been legitimate, and he used the correct age for the earth, then he'd get something completely different. With his approach, the earth's magnetic field 4.6 billion years ago (the actual age of the earth) would be so high we'd be sitting on a neutron star.

We can see large animals with certain bone features did exist because we have physical evidence of that. We can prove nothing of their behavior. Nothing of how they interacted with each other.

Ah ... so it is possible to infer things prior to a human being physically there to see it. You had claimed otherwise.

And nothing about when they roamed the Earth

Wrong there ... we know when they roamed the earth via radiometric dating techniques, and other dating techniques.

The original material was water. Everything started out as water.

We know that the planets formed from the material in the accretion disk formed when the sun formed. This material was not water, although there may have been some insignificant amount of H2O around. Humphrey's claim that planets started as balls of H2O is based on some biblical comment that he references. But that doesn't jive with reality. It doesn't matter if there are issues with planetary formation mechanisms today ... all that matters (as far as Humphrey's "theory") is whether or not the planets started as balls of pure H2O as he claims. They clearly did not. Toss in his god miracle of having all the H atom nuclear spins aligned and it gets even more ridiculous.

One of the reasons I believe this is most of the angular momentum of the solar system is in the planets and not the largest object the sun.

He did not put that in his paper but he should have.

The sun is the center of rotation for the solar system, so its distance from itself is zero and its angular momentum would be zero as a result were it not a big ball with a nonzero radius. This radius creates angular momentum for the sun's surface and all points away from the geometric center. The sun represents 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system. The planets, moons, asteroids, etc. all make up a measly 0.14% of the total solar system mass. But because of their distance from the sun (center of rotation) the planets do make up about 96% of the total angular momentum of the solar system (Jupiter alone accounts for 60% of that). But what does this have to do with Humphrey's "theory", and his two wrong starting assumptions? Or are you popping up from another hole again and changing the subject?