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 DrNoGods]

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.

How is k a fudge factor? It can only have 4 values. And in his later papers he corrected that and made k=1 in all of his calculations.

That was his point that the earth is not 4.6 billion years ago.



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

We can look at results from the past but not processes of the past. You say that the dino's are X million years old because they are in X rock layer.

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

Oh, you mean like dino soft tissue in "fossils".

Quote:
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.

I personally do not have a problem with the possibility that solar systems can form from natural processes. God created us to live forever. So we would need a universe that could regenerate itself. And replenishing stars and planets would be part of that process. With that being said there are some serious problems with the current theory.

1. Formation of the sun.

The sun is a ball of gas that heats as it contracts. Charles law says that as a gas is heated if volume increases. The electromagnetic is far stronger than gravity so these gase should not collapse but they should expand. The swirling of the gases is supposedly caused by a gravity well that is created when enough mass is concentrated at the center of what will be the future star. Electromagnetic forces would continually expand the mass of hydrogen not contract it.

Since it is theorized that the sun would be rotating quickly mass would have a tendency to fly off instead of contract to the center.

As the mass of hydrogen condensed the magnetic fields would twist and the lines of magnetic force would repel each other. Creating another problem for condensing.

2. Now let's say that this star somehow contracted and formed a star. Angular momentum would say since most of the mass of the solar system is in the sun or the star then most of the angular momentum should be in the star of the sun. This is not what is observed. This is called the "angular momentum of the solar system paradox".

3. The gas giants formed where they are in secular theory because when the sun began to fuse hydrogen solar winds pushed all the remaining hydrogen out to the present position of where Jupiter is and beyond. This is given a name but I cannot remember right now what this is called. One of the major problems with this is the discovery of exoplanets that do not follow this model. And it is not a few that do not follow this model but most.

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?

No one to my knowledge has used this theory to work out how the planets could have formed under these conditions. Huge issue I grant you. It does leave this theory incomplete. But I would also have to say that secular theories who do have a lot of scientist working on them are also incomplete.

I can believe it would be very easy to show how the z-pinch process could make heavier elements and then forming planets. Creationist do have theories in which God could manipulate gravity without changing the energy density of the fabric of space. And I do anticipate that many in the secular world will seriously look at these theories because they solve many of the problems in cosmology today.

I believe we are at an impasse. My theory has not progressed past this point and your theory has many problems that has to be solved. I believe from this point on we will begin to circle round and round.

Thank you for the conversation, I always enjoy an informed opinion.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
In this theory 5 assumptions are made. 
...
"God"

When we assume God's involvement, we must conclude his involvement.

checkmate atheists!

.

[Diagoras]

Converting the mass of the universe to water and then...
<snip>.
This would be a large change in the magnetic field so it would produce a large current.

Bolding mine

What’s doing the ‘converting’ here? This reads as if the composition of the entire universe (mainly hydrogen) is being changed - by some process - into water.

This idea contradicts just about every physical science there is. There’s zero evidence for anything like this ever happening in the past, and it certainly couldn’t happen in the future. Such an extraordinary claim, which would demand extraordinary proof to be taken seriously, is easily dismissed as being far-fetched and fictional.

All the physical evidence available supports the hypothesis of the universe being approximately 13.8 billion years old. Plenty of Christians (not necessarily scientists) happily accept that fact and still believe in God.

There’s plenty of good science around to be excited about and to marvel at (and we are all free to ascribe it to God, natural forces or whatever), so there’s no real need to support such faulty reasoning as this ‘water’ theory. It does you no credit.