From TZB - 780/c1312e29cfa2c085.html
|I am preparing a set of modifications to all of the articles on the (formerly nine, now eight) planets, and also some of the moons of those planets. At issue: the magnetic fields of Earth, the Sun, the Moon (yes, the Moon /did/ have a magnetic field once; the Apollo 15 and 16 astronauts brought back rocks that proved that), Mercury (which wasn't supposed to have a magnetic field, yet does), Saturn, and especially Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. And also the Galilean moons, most of which turned out to be magnetic as well.
Conventionally minded astronomers have never been able to figure out why some planets have magnetic fields, and some do not. The favored theory is that you have to have a liquid-metal or other liquid-conductive core to get a magnetic field, and you also have to have a body that spins fairly rapidly. The trouble is that Mercury and Uranus, to name two examples, fail those tests, and yet they have magnetic fields--while Mars, which passes them, does not. (Or at least not strong enough to keep a compass needle lined up.)
But Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, formerly of the Sandia National Laboratories and now full-time at the Institute for Creation Research, has a model for magnetic-field formation that will likely blow a lot of minds, especially on Conservapedia, where (to my regret) the creation model of the universe is still contested.
Humphreys assumes that God created all celestial bodies, of whatever size, initially out of /water/, which He subsequently transmuted into the stuff of which each body is presently made. But when He began with water (II Peter 3:5), He aligned about a fourth of the hydrogen atoms in the water molecules, thus generating an aggregate magnetic dipole moment proportional to the mass of the body. (Jupiter was a special case; I'll get to that.) Once this field was in place, it created an electrical current, even as the water molecules fell out of alignment. The current was the first thing to keep the magnetic field going, even after the transmutation--because a magnetic field, once generated, doesn't shut itself down right away.
Such a magnetic field is subject to exponential decay--how fast depends on the mass and conductivity of the body's core. The Moon didn't have much of a core, though what there was of it was just as conductive as is our own core on earth. Mercury has a core that's almost as big around as the planet itself, and it is /very/ conductive; hence its magnetic field has persisted, this although the core is solid and thus cannot function as a dynamo.
How did I learn about this: Simple: Humphreys published his model on the creation of celestial-body magnetic fields in 1984. In his paper he made definite predictions for the magnetic dipole moments of Uranus and Neptune, two planets that no space probe had yet visited close-up.
Two years later, Voyager 2 reconnoitered Uranus; and three years after that, Neptune. In each case, Voyager obtained magnetic-flux-density readings. /They were dead-on consistent with Humphreys' predictions/. And in Uranus' case, they were totally at odds with what the conventional astronomers expected; by their models, Uranus /ought not have a magnetic field of any appreciable strength/.
So here is what I propose:
At the bottom of the "infobox" on each planet, you will see some entries for "magnetic dipole moment at present" and "magnetic dipole moment at creation." That's right, /at creation/. The time for being coy about creation theory is past. I'm also going to publish exponential decay-time constants and half-lives. And I will have an article explaining the Humphreys model of magnetic-field formation and decay ready to load.
If you want to see what this will look like, then I invite you to check out a few articles on CreationWiki that I have already modified in this way:
predictive value of his model)
Humphreys' proposal that the Moon suffered /two/ major bombardments. The first bombardment, with the most severe impacts (the crust-cracking objects that caused the volcanic flows that produced the lunar maria), occurred a few centuries after the Fall of Man. The second, lighter bombardment that left the meteorite craters, occurred about two centuries after the Great Flood. Neither event had anything to do with the Flood--/unless/ we assume that the Flood event caused the ejection of a lot of ice and mud into space, and much of that ended up falling on the Moon and especially on the Moon's far side.
I mentioned that Jupiter is a special case. Here's just how special it is: Jupiter's present magnetic field is /stronger/ than Humphreys initially calculated it to be at the time of creation, on the basis of a 25% alignment of the water molecules. So Humphreys recalculated Jupiter's magnetic dipole moment at creation by assuming that God aligned /all/ of the water molecules for maximum effect. He got a value larger than the MDM of today, and consistent with a half-life of over 2200 years (assuming that creation occurred 6,100 years ago, give or take a hundred). Humphreys said of Jupiter that "God...pulled out all the organ stops" when he made that giant planet.
So why should Jupiter be so special? Maybe it's not so much Jupiter as the constellations that you normally find it in, and specifically the Zodiac. How many of you know that the Zodiac figures actually tell the story of Christ's coming, in symbolic terms? And consider this: Jupiter can be found in a different constellation every fall, or every spring, in a twelve-year cycle (because Jupiter's sidereal year is nearly twelve years). The Babylonians figured that Jupiter was supposed to be some kind of "guide" for the constellations to follow. I suggest (and I talked it over with my pastor, and he agrees) that Jupiter is actually God's blackboard pointer to the Zodiac.
Now won't /that/ make the RW crowd howl with outrage!
The only reason I haven't published any of that material to CP is that I wanted to advise you first. This is the most exciting development in creation science that I have yet seen--except for John Hartnett's cosmological relativistic galactocentrism, that obviates the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy." (Did any of you know that the astronomical community is organizing a /conference/ on the subject of dark energy? You'd think that after the "Planet Vulcan" fiasco they'd know better than that!) I could also cite Tim Lovett's model for Noah's Ark--what it might have looked like and where Noah might have built it.
So what does everybody think? Here, by the way, is a reference to Humphreys' original article: Humphreys, D. R. *http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields." /Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008. And here is the reference to Humphreys' triumphal observation that Voyager 2 vindicated his model: Humphreys, D. R. *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=329 Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation." /Institute for Creation Research/. Accessed April 30, 2008
From: "Brian Macdonald"
|Make RW howl!|
|I've a very high regard for Russell Humphreys (and not because I met him once; is that name-dropping?), and I think what Terry is proposing here is a very good idea. I'm sure that I've already mentioned Humphreys' successful astronomical predictions on Conservapedia, although it may have only been in talk-page discussions.
However, I make a few cautions.
a.. Despite finding a possible reason for Jupiter being different, it still sounds rather like special pleading. b.. The idea that the zodiac tells the gospel story has been around a while, but lacks much support. CMI and AiG advise that this is not a good argument to use (which is not the same as saying that it's wrong). c.. I'm far from convinced that Tim Lovett (can I mention that I've met him too?) has the right idea about the ark. His ideas can be mentioned as possibilities, but we shouldn't treat them as necessarily true.
I believe I heard (probably from Humphreys himself) that the conventional astronomers were quite wrong about both Uranus and Neptune, except that after Voyager returned the results from Uranus, they revised their predictions for Neptune, so managed to get it (close to) right after all.
Humphreys has also predicted how much Mercury's magnetic field will be have decreased since it was last measured in 1975, and the spacecraft Messenger flew near it on 14th January this year. Initial results of the measurement of the magnetic field were consistent with Humphreys' prediction, although it was a very broad measurement so doesn't mean much. But Messenger will go into orbit around Mercury in 2011, and be able to make much more accurate measurements, and perhaps accurate enough to confirm Humphreys' prediction.
Of course, all this makes nonsense of anti-creationist claims that creationism doesn't make testable predictions!
|Thank you very much for the below. That's another reason why I wanted to run this past everyone.
Modifications to the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Uranus articles are ready now. Neptune is next--along with a new article for Triton, Neptune's largest moon and the only dwarf-planet-sized natural satellite that follows a retrograde orbit with respect to its own primary. (Charon doesn't count; though its orbit is "clockwise," so is Pluto's own rotation.)
A few points:
1. Jupiter /is/ different from the rest, and I /have/ to anticipate that someone will ask why Jupiter should have had so much more powerful a magnetic field at creation than any other celestial body that has ever undergone close-enough inspection to take magnetic-flux-density readings. I can say, "It may or may not be significant" that Jupiter has a synodic period that ancient calendar devisers found significant, or that Jupiter's sidereal period is very nearly twelve Julian years. But I don't think I can ignore the problem, and Humphreys didn't provide much insight in his original paper.
2. I can develop the zodiac idea later on, and perhaps even in an essay.
3. Concerning Tim Lovett, I'm prepared to suggest only that his ideas look best of all, not that we have a definitive answer in his model. And if you know of any other model of Noah's Ark, I'd appreciate a link to follow. In fact, in my revisions to the Ark article on CreationWiki, I mentioned Shane Johnson's scenario. I admit that he presented it in fiction, and that his real area of expertise is the history of Project Apollo. Nevertheless, he did construct a model for the building and launching of the Ark that deserves some consideration:
A. Antediluvian society was far more technologically advanced than is our society today. B. Noah built his ark to look like a vast rectilinar barn. It might not have looked like a cargo ship at all. C. Noah used an advanced-composite wood intended specifically for building houses in his day. D. Noah oriented the ark to present one stem toward the distant shore, so that when the wall of water came, it struck the ark directly
astern, not abeam.
In contrast, Tim Lovett chose to assume that antediluvian society was not much further advanced than a hypothetical ancient Egypt with metallurgy.
4. Your reminder about Project MESSENGER is quite timely. Do you have a link to MESSENGER's latest readings on Mercury's magnetic field? I'd like to cite those. I can use Humphreys' equations and perhaps verify his predictions independently.
 TK and Plagiarism
After TK was called out yet again on his plagiarising articles (11/10/2010), he went into meltdown. First deleting the talkpage of the UCLA article, where his previous plagiarism (documented here) before launch8ing into a hysterical rantimg on the plagiarism article's talk page [[File:Plagiarism - Conservapedia 1286810843453.png|screen shot here] We eagerly await the new TK proof definition of plagiarism.
 Text of TK's rant
“”I am going to delete this article, pending a rewrite, because of the inconsistencies noted above by Professor Jensen, and the insertion by vandal site trolls (who have all long-ago been blocked for their perfidy) of completely spurious information. Using government-provided text, written at taxpayers expense, and duly cited as the source, with links provided, is not plagiarism as established in case law. Someone employed by the government, to write website text, has absolutely no claim to copyright, as they do so as part of their duties, and are paid for what they do, at taxpayers expense. Aside from that, it is also a well-established policy here, from the owner of this site, that copying from government websites is permitted. Now if someone copies an article from the Department of Defense, without attribution, leaving the impression they were the author, that isn't plagiarism, but it could be dishonesty. But to adapt government copy for use here, or anywhere, with a clear citation of where it comes from is not dishonest or illegal in any way, shape or form. Anyone who argues differently is either a troll or liar, most likely both. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 11:22, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
Oh by the way, Uni Nevada's copyright says "All text, images, logos and information contained on official University websites are the intellectual property of the University of Nevada, Reno and the Nevada System of Higher Education unless otherwise indicated.U.S. copyright law provides protection for all content, with or without this statement. Reproduction of any content--text, images, photographs, etc.--requires permission."