Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!

Creation on the Web ^ | August 26, 2008 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

[GodGunsGuts]

Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.1 As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby.2

As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was:

[GourmetDan]

"1) Please show me where the speed of light has changed in the last 50 years. I know you’ll cite differences based on available tech at the time prior than 50 years."

So why did you change your tune from the last 200 to the last 50 years? You said the measurements had been constant. Now you admit they haven't and have changed the timeline. What's next?

"2) You never answered my question as to why a Type 1A supernova are pretty much uniform from location to location. Very rarely is anything different between them. Yet the speed of light when they occurred all varied WILDLY. EXPONENTIALLY so even."

Because you only define those supernovae that fit the criteria as Type 1A. The others are 'something else'.

"3) The pat answer I usually get for the time/distance discrepancy is “gravitational time dilation”. AS if those three words actually answer anything. Since you replied to my post citing that, I tried to follow up with you. Since you don’t want to tackle that, then we’ll skip it."

One again, it's not my argument and I never referred to it.

You have avoided explaining the 'horizon problem', which I did posit to you.

[GourmetDan]

"It seems to have the explanatory power that your Geocentric model is completely lacking."

Geocentrism predicted a null result for M-M and Airey's Failure.

Neither of which was predicted by geokineticism.

[GodGunsGuts]

At the very minimum, you should at least read and digest the following before wading into the discussion:

http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology

[GourmetDan]

"So then, what force offsets the gravitational force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth such that the reality is turned on its head and the massive object of the Sun is brought under the sway of the relatively tiny object of the Earth?"

Do you realize that the moon exerts twice the gravitational force on the earth that the sun does?

[rosenfan]

You have presented a false dichotomy. No serious person of faith that I know or have heard has suggested that science is useless - or should be ignored.

No serious person of faith is a young earth creationist? Young earth creationism ignores science by definition.

On the contrary, many (especially the early) scientists were people of faith who took their belief in an ordered universe as the datum from which their science was derived.

Don't you find it interesting that there is so much that is orderly and predictable? And yet there are some that suggest that all this order came from chaos...

I'm not speaking of the question of whether or not there's a God. That question is outside the realm of science. I'm speaking of those who try to understand things such as biological diversity or the age of the Solar system through such myths as the Biblical flood or the account in Genesis.

[Gordon Greene]

Honestly, I was reading along getting more and more angry with the immense number of assinine would-be scientists. Then I read your responses and you placed it all in perspective.

Thanks for making my evening a little lighter.

Gordon

[count-your-change]

The stuff you've posted and the links, which you probably haven't read yourself, are quite fantastic enough in themselves.
If I run short of reading material I'll go to something more believable then silly assertions that the planet Mercury was once a giant water droplet.
Yeah, something more believable like, “Alien Autopsy”.

[Gordon Greene]

Are you a scientist or do you just play one on some cheesy show on Nick at Nite?

[GodGunsGuts]

Suit yourself.

[jimmyray]

If you look at the Hebrew, the word used as ‘day’ carries symbolic meaning, and the same Hebrew word was used to identify ages, such as the span of a person’s life

Bad hermenuetic. EVERY time in the OT, when a number is used in conjunction with the word day, it refers to a 24 hour period. On top of that, God described "Evening and morning" as being a day. Taken together, it is obvious that the intention is a 24 hour day. It was NEVER suggested to mean anything different, until people started trying to compromise scripture with the false assumptions of evolution.Consider:
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day
and so on...

BTW: the stages of the creation as described in Genesis map very nicely to what an observer on the surface of the earth would see in fast forward as the earth formed according to the current theories of science.

If one reads the sequence recorded in Genesis 1, the scripture has the sequence of events completely opposite the evolution sequence. Scripture has Earth before sun & stars, water before land, light before the sun, plants before the sun, birds before land animals.

Finally, if it is symbolic, then the earth had vegetation aons before the Sun was created. The two theories are completely incompatable!!!

[count-your-change]

O.K., if you’ll tell me where you find someone that thinks Mercury was once a giant water glob or such.

[SengirV]

I changed from 200 to 50 years to maximize the significant digits in the values. We can go back to 200 years if you like, then you’ll show a faster value someone came up with and ignore a slower value that I find.

If you are going to compare a Type II supernova to Type 1A supernova, then we can stop here. It’s pointless to continue because you refuse to answer.

You say horizon, I say inflation
You say problem, I say theory
horizon, inflation, problem, theory
lets call the whole thing off.

[allmendream]

YOUR NOT TELLING ME!

How can I understand what your “telling me” when your not actually saying anything?

What force drags the Sun around the Earth?

Simple question. Why no answer?

[allmendream]

“Do you realize that the moon exerts twice the gravitational force on the earth that the sun does?” GourmetDan

Wow. Your really going to have to show me your work on that one. Are you even using Newton or do you have some Biblical interpretation you are deriving your numbers from?

Newton gives...

Force of Gravity F= (G m1 m2)/r^2

where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses and r^2 is the distance between the two masses.

Mass of Earth = 5.9*10^24 kg
Mass of Moon = 7.3*10^22 kg
Mass of Sun = 2*10^30 kg
Earth Moon distance = 3.8*10^8 m
Earth Sun distance = 1.5*10^11 m

Using that formula one cannot help but notice that the gravity between the Sun and Earth is one hundred and seventy times greater than between the Moon and Earth.

Earth Sun gravity = 3.5*10^22 Newtons
Earth Moon gravity = 2.0*10^20 Newtons

Twice as much? Seems you have it backwards and the Sun Earth gravity is ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TIMES AS STRONG.

I guess it is back to the drawing board for your funny Geocentric model.

[metmom]

Sure,... laugh....

ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CholeraJoe]

If you had said that 400 years ago you’d have been burned at the stake by the Vatican.

[GourmetDan]

"I changed from 200 to 50 years to maximize the significant digits in the values. We can go back to 200 years if you like, then you’ll show a faster value someone came up with and ignore a slower value that I find."

The problem with shortening the time period to 50 years is that time was measured atomically over most of that period, and you know what that does to the measurement.

"If you are going to compare a Type II supernova to Type 1A supernova, then we can stop here. It’s pointless to continue because you refuse to answer."

Uh, no. Type 1A supernova are identified by a specific light-curve. No specific light-curve, no Type 1A supernova. It's truth by definition.

[jimmyray]

Do you realize that the moon exerts twice the gravitational force on the earth that the sun does?

???

Maybe this shpuld have been qualified, or explained or something. Simple Newtonian physics won't support that assertion.

[GourmetDan]

"YOUR NOT TELLING ME! How can I understand what your “telling me” when your not actually saying anything? What force drags the Sun around the Earth? Simple question. Why no answer?"

I have been answering you. You aren't able to understand. Your questions make that clear. Geocentrists always consider the entire universe in their models while geokineticists always ignore the universe and focus on the solar system.

Don't freak out dude. I'm fine w/ you believing in geokineticism.

Really, I am.

[GourmetDan]

"Maybe this should have been qualified, or explained or something. Simple Newtonian physics won't support that assertion."

Yeah, I suppose so.

Moon has twice the influence on tides as the sun