Posted on 10/26/2011 8:44:02 AM PDT by fishtank
Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Oct. 26, 2011
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."1
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.2 He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Then, he plotted the rate at which the magnetic fields would have diminished over the roughly 6,000 years since. Humphreys wrote, "Electrical resistance in a planet's core will decrease the electrical current causing the magnetic field, just as friction slows down a flywheel."3 The resulting model accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, as well as the declining strength of Mercury's field.4
In 2008, Messenger flew past Mercury and captured a magnetic field measurement, and Humphreys compared it with the decaying slope generated by his creation model. Sure enough, Mercury's magnetic field strength had diminished since 1974, right in line with the predicted value of the creation magnetic field model.
If Mercury's magnetic field is supposed to have lasted for many millions of years, then it should be very stable over vast time periods. But as Messenger's data show, researchers can measure its decay within a person's lifetime.
Humphreys wrote, "My predicted 4% decrease in only 33 years would be very hard for evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields to explain, but a greater decrease would be even harder on the theories."3 He anticipated more accurate 2011 measurements, which Science published on September 30.
The Science authors wrote that the field strength for Mercury is "~27% lower in magnitude than the centered-dipole estimate implied by the polar Mariner 10 flyby."5 This confirms that Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly diminishing, which in turn confirms that the field must only be thousands of years old—just as the creation model predicts.
References
Ness, N. F. 1979. The magnetic field of Mercury. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 20 (2-4): 209-217.
Humphreys, D. R. 1984. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3): 140-149.
Humphreys, D. R. 2008. Mercury's magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 8-9.
Humphreys, D. R. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).
Anderson, B. J. et al. 2011. The Global Magnetic Field of Mercury from MESSENGER Orbital Observations. Science. 333 (6051): 1859-1862.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Except for that "evening and morning" thing ...
Why doesn’t this evidence exist on all the land surfaces? Why is there only evidence of a great flood in a few isolated areas? Areas that are down stream from former massive glacial melt-water lakes?
Ummm. The end of the last Ice Age, anyone?
Even today 80% of the world's population lives within 200 ft of sea level.
When all that ice melted off the continents, world wide sea levels rose 300 ft.
That's gonna make an impression on folks world wide...
Funny you'd say that. Not all days have an "evening and morning" were the nth day.
According to the Bible we're still in the 7th day by that criteria.
I concur. While I respect the attempt to propose a young earth, making it absolute necessary doctrine, which is precisely what I see most young earth creationists doing, is in my opinion unbiblical. Scripture simply does not say how old the earth is. Period. The young earth model comes from assembling geneologies together, which is a woefully inaccurate way of calculating the age of the earth. Doctrine based upon clear statements of scripture is hard to argue with. Making doctrine out of inferences, at best, is in and of itself unbiblical.
What do “evening and morning” really mean in the “day”’s before the Sun had been created?
I worded that wrong N&V - I really meant it would be hard to explain away, or to disprove. Just the opposite of what I managed to type. And not for the first time...But I think you are right on the money.
Not all of them do. The ones that consider any other belief to be heresy assume you must accept a "young Earth" version, because anything else means you don't really belive in Creation.
You got that right! Oblivious pin-headery. This bunch continues to embarrass themselves.
Nice to know I'm not the only one that happens to...
“Before Abraham was I Am”.
You are under the illusion that you understand time.
This confirms that Mercury’s magnetic field is rapidly diminishing,...
That is all it confirms, it may have diminished in the
past, stabilized, grown, and diminished again over time.
Not enough information to make any thing other than
a guess as to the age of the planet or how the age
is related to the Magnetic field.
Just a layman’s view.
That's a pretty large flying winger now isn't it?
You’re obviously over the target. It’s funny when a scientist is accused of being anti-science.
Sometimes people will actually tell you you are wrong, simply because, oh, I dunno, because you are?
I’m even worse when speaking. <-—And sadly, that IS exactly what I meant.
Um, maybe because a trillion-amp electric current (the solar wind) is continually flowing at right angles past the planets, which have metallic cores? Gee, I wonder why they might have magnetic fields?
This "we know the universe is young because everything winds down quickly" pseudo-theory does not cut any ice here.
Young earth creationists damage the Christian witness, in my opinion.
Was there some aspect of my question that was “mocking”, or were you referring to others?
You’re obviously over the target. It’s funny when a scientist is accused of being anti-science.
<><><><><
Obama is taking a lot of flak, too.
Does that mean he is over the target as well?
I’ve never understood the analogy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.