Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Mon, 05 May 2008 19:55:00 -0400:
Welcome, Crocoite, Conservative, Learn together, and any other new
members who have joined in the past month.
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:
<http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Uranus> (in which I explain a plain
case in which a creationist beat the conventional astronomers in the
predictive value of his model)
<http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Moon> in which I talk about the
evidence for an ancient magnetic field on the Moon, and reiterate
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.
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.
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation." /Institute for Creation
Research/. Accessed April 30, 2008