Creationist Insights in Astronomy

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Mon, 05 May 2008 19:55:00 -0400:

Ladies and gentlemen:

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/Sun>

<http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Earth>

<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.
"<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

TerryH

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Mon, 5 May 2008 22:26:27 -0500:

Make RW howl!

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 7 May 2008 01:22:17 +1000:

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!

Philip Rayment

p.s.  What other names can I drop?  Henry Morris?  No, I never did meet him or see him in person, unfortunately! :-)

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Tue, 06 May 2008 12:34:24 -0400:

Philip:

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.

TerryH

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Tue, 06 May 2008 18:20:27 -0400:

Brian:

Well, they can start howling right now. The modifications for the
articles on Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and the planet Uranus are now in
place.

Neptune is next. Why Neptune? Because that was the second planet whose
magnetic field Humphreys successfully predicted /before/ we knew its
true strength.

TerryH

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Tue, 6 May 2008 23:30:21 -0700:

Hello all,

I also seem to recall astronomical models were changed by the time of the
Neptune measurements so they were relatively accurate.  I see to recall as
well that Humphries' theories were controversial even in Creationist
circles.  In other words they made starting assumptions about the nature of
the creation that weren't necessarily commonly held beliefs.

I have heard this argued before by the secular side, so in fairness they
point out that Humphries estimates were hardly threading a needle.  He left
a large variation so it was more like hitting the side of a barn.  Granted
the secular side had an incorrect assumption that made them miss the barn
altogether, but the prediction by Humphries still wasn't one of calculated
precision.

By the way, ICR is about 20 minutes from my house.  I really liked the old
tour guide.  He was the one who pointed out that models for global warming
that predict the future aren't accurate when sent backwards in time and
compared against what actually occurred.  Now there's something you won't
hear in school. ;-)

Bill    (Learn Together)

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 7 May 2008 21:03:28 +1000:

I've no problem with anything you've said there.  I might add, though, that,
with regard to his cosmology at least, Humphreys always stressed the
tentativeness of his ideas, never vainly proclaiming that he /had/ found the
answer.

I'm not sure what you man by ark "models".  If you mean actual /models/
rather than /scenarios/, then I can return to name-dropping mode :-) and
link to http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5103, the creator of
which I'm good friends with.  (And see anecdote below.)

For Messenger, I don't know if this is what you are after, but try:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5614/ (and see
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5636/ too).

And whilst on the subject of Humphreys and cosmological models (theories),
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5738 about the "Pioneer anomaly"
(which I'd never heard of) was posted today.

Philip Rayment

Anecdote:  The link above regarding models of Noah's Ark mentions that
"Once, they even popped the hatches open during a gridlock on the highway.".
I'm not sure whether this is the same incident, but once, when at a
fruit-fly check point (past which you are not allowed to take any fresh
fruit) at which there was a queue of vehicles, the official asked if he had
any fruit.  He said that he didn't, but said "what about the animals?".
"What animals?", the woman asked.  So he opened the side panels of the van
to show the model of Noah's Ark with the (model) animals.  The woman was
fascinated, and called her colleague over for a look also.  The colleague
was so impressed that he started suggesting to others waiting in the queue
that they might want to have a look also!  Talk about witnessing
opportunities!

I could also mention all the times that a crowd gathers when they stop in a
caravan park for the night, or how he starts conversations in shops, or...

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 7 May 2008 21:10:31 +1000:

Your recollection regarding Neptune is consistent with my recollection:  Okay, so they changed the model, but that may have been because it didn't work with Uranus, so they had to come up with something different.

I don't know how accurate Humphreys' prediction was, but in a sense it doesn't matter: it was more accurate than the secular prediction, so is still an example of a successful creationist prediction.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with Humphreys' theories being controversial, but certainly his cosmology put forward in Starlight and Time (and I guess in papers before that) was, er, "original", and certainly weren't "commonly held beliefs", and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some controversy over them.

Philip Rayment

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Wed, 07 May 2008 10:06:23 -0400:

Philip Rayment wrote:
> I've no problem with anything you've said there.  I might add, though, that,
> with regard to his cosmology at least, Humphreys always stressed the
> tentativeness of his ideas, never vainly proclaiming that he /had/ found the
> answer.

I knew that. In fact, John Hartnett came out with a cosmology model that
answers the key objection to the Humphreys model. And that is: Humphreys
conceived of the universe as a great gravity well, with our galaxy at
bottom. But in that case, light from far-distant objects would be
blueshifted--not /red/shifted as it actually is. Hartnett has it figured
out, I think: we're actually at the center of an expansion process that
is now over with--but that far-distant light still shows the effects of
the original expansion.
> I'm not sure what you man by ark "models".  If you mean actual /models/
> rather than /scenarios/, then I can return to name-dropping mode :-) and
> link to http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5103, the creator of
> which I'm good friends with.  (And see anecdote below.)

I had forgotten that a "model" of an object might be a to-scale replica
of that object. I meant a scenario for the building and launching of the
Ark, not a replica (although the building of replicas, and the
conducting of some kind of sea trial, is part of crafting a scenario
that tries to be consistent with the history).

TerryH

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 7 May 2008 08:38:53 -0700:

Yes, it is my understanding that modern astronomy found its "error" in
regard to Uranus after the readings came in and changed the model to account
for it.  And of course all I meant by Humphries views was that they were
"original" as you state, controversial in this case meaning only that they
aren't universally accepted in Creationist circles.  I have a paper copy of
the original Acts & Facts article that first talked about his success in his
prediction versus the secular prediction and if I recall there was a
disclaimer from ICR, done in good taste, which stated his views were based
on a theory of creation that wasn't specifically endorsed by ICR themselves.

It certainly impressed me at the time when I first read it.

Bill

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Wed, 07 May 2008 11:54:47 -0400:

Bill and Philip:

If either of you have a reference for the astronomers changing their
model after the Voyager-Uranus flyby blew it away, I would very much
like to see that. I'll need it for the article on Neptune.

That ICR did not specifically endorse Humphreys' water-transmutation
model doesn't bother me. In fact, ICR earns my respect by insisting that
those who construct any sort of model, prove it out. You don't do good
science by consensus, anyway. We criticize the naturalists for doing
that; we ought never try to do it ourselves.

This episode shows that the creation side has the good science, with
models that have genuine and consistent predictive value. The naturalist
side turns out to have the "crackpot theories." That, and recurring
themes like "giant impacts." (Did anyone here know that virtually every
planet in the solar system has some kind of giant-impact model
associated with it, to explain some departure of the planet, one of its
moons, or both, from the predictions of the nebular model of the
creation of the solar system? Spike Psarris found that out and is using
that effectively as one of the dirty little secrets of solar-system
astronomy.)

TerryH

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 8 May 2008 02:53:05 +1000:

Actually, this article (http://www.icr.org/article/329/) seems to be saying
that they /didn't/ change their model.

Philip Rayment