Skip to comments.Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by 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 Mercurys 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 predictionsbased on Scriptureabout 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:
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
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 dont want to tackle that, then well 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.
Geocentrism predicted a null result for M-M and Airey's Failure.
Neither of which was predicted by geokineticism.
At the very minimum, you should at least read and digest the following before wading into the discussion:
Do you realize that the moon exerts twice the gravitational force on the earth that the sun does?
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.
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.
Are you a scientist or do you just play one on some cheesy show on Nick at Nite?
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 morningthe first day
And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.
And there was evening, and there was morningthe 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!!!
O.K., if you’ll tell me where you find someone that thinks Mercury was once a giant water glob or such.
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.
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?
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?
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.
If you had said that 400 years ago you’d have been burned at the stake by the Vatican.
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. Its 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.
Maybe this shpuld have been qualified, or explained or something. Simple Newtonian physics won't support that assertion.
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.
Yeah, I suppose so.
Two groups amuse me:
Vegetarians who are supposedly happy with their choices but are constantly eating meat flavored this and that
The devout who are supposedly secure in their beliefs but spend their time trying to prove scientists wrong
Mine are the green crowd...
like the loons on HGTV that think they’ve saved the planet by turning a copper kettle into a chandelier, wholly unaware that copper occurs naturally within the earth,
those so insecure about their worldview they hijack the ACLU (anti-Christian litigation unit) to silence ALL of society as they did in my county by sneakily threatening legal action if the school board didn’t remove Christmas, A FEDERAL HOLIDAY from the school calendar!
I suspect your #2 is more a result of my #2.
And we thought all the moonbats were libs...
If only that was true. Unfortunately when debating some of my liberal friends I have to spend way too much time disavowing my supposed fellow conservatives who espouse some completely moonbat views that have nothing to do at all with Conservatism.
What’s that? Everything we see is an unexplained chance, random accident and man came from apes?
On the tides, yes, all will agree with that. Interestingly enough, the motion of the planets can be explained by either model (geo or heliocentric), but the apparent reversal of the orbital patterns of the planets can better be described by a heliocentric model of the solar system. Even so, from our perspective on earth, the sun rises and sets, as does the moon and constellations, as well as the equinioxes, and thus we have the lunisolar calendar used by many ancient peoples. However, one must assume some reason for the origin of a 7 day week, which has been almost universal in it's use from the earliest recorded history. The only "scientific" explanation that I have seen is a subdivsion of the lunar cyle into 4 parts. However, the Judeo-Christian belief system references the 7 day creation week. Thus, each is left with a chicked-egg conundrum. Did Moses adopt the 7 day week that was in use into his creation account, or... was the creation account the basis for the 7 day week. Neither proposition can be proved conclusively, each must be accepted on faith! The Big Bang-er takes a Darwinian approach to social development, and must support the former explanation, or some other "rational" theory. The Biblical Creationist, obviously, accepts the latter.
Actually, man is an ape...by definition.
Wrong. The Sun Earth gravity is one hundred seventy times as strong as the Moon Earth gravity.
“Moon has twice the influence on tides as the sun” GDan
Do you understand the difference between the two? How are we supposed to take your Astrological model of Geocentricism seriously when you are so mathematically incompetent?
“What part of the Word of God implies, suggests, hints at, recommends or otherwise mentions a Geocentric universe?”
“What force do you propose drags the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?”
Saying that you already have answered just makes you look like an obfuscating fool.
Not really. You're using the old, old model, not the one used by Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.
"However, one must assume some reason for the origin of a 7 day week, which has been almost universal in it's use from the earliest recorded history."
Did you know that the days of the week are named after the Sun, Moon and the 5 visible planets? Sun-day, Moon-day, Tiu's-day (Mars), Woden's-day (Mercury), Thor's-day (Jupiter), Frija's-day (Venus).
And finally, Saturn-day as the Sabbath day (Holy) and Saturn has a 'halo'.
Yep, my mistake for using the word 'force' rather than 'influence' in my original post.
Just how many people do you speak for?
Still absolutely and unambiguously incorrect.
The Sun exerts one hundred seventy times the force upon the earth that the moon does.
I have a mouse in my pocket.
Now can you answer my two very simple questions about your supposedly superior model?
What force drags the Sun around the Earth while not acting to move the Earth?
What Biblical justification can you source that implies suggests or otherwise mentions a Geocentric universe?
Actually, man is an ape...by definition.
Well, more proof to me that there’s gaping holes in evolution.
We’re just apes with some higher form of intelligence than other apes?
Oh wait, no intelligence is allowed! ALMOST forgot!
Well of course you are. Can you not even be honest about that?
"If you don't like the word necessitates then how about this question which you apparently will not answer. What part of the Word of God implies, suggests, hints at, recommends or otherwise mentions a Geocentric universe?"
No point in answering. You don't believe it and will insist that any reference I provide is metaphor.
" What force do you propose drags the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless? Saying that you already have answered just makes you look like an obfuscating fool."
Insisting that I have not answered in the face of all of the evidence I have presented to you confirms that you simply do not want to understand. Maybe one of your geokinetic buddies will clue you in. But... maybe not.
And that's the difference between calculation and observation.
"To be entirely correct, we must tell you that the laws of physics involved actually show that the Moon is the one of the most important objects to the Earth... gravitationally speaking. It is the Moon which is responsible for things like ocean tides and such. All the other planets in our solar system added together do not have as large a gravitational effect on the Earth as the Moon does."
"Here is a table of tidal forces of the Sun, Moon, and Planets. With the Sun's tidal force equal to 1.00, the following values are given in Thompson (1981):"
For those of us who actually think, ad hominem insults such as this tend to harm the one making the insult more than the one receiving it. It cheapens the discussion, lessening the authority of the one who is demeaning his adversary.
A simple attack on the assertion, and it's subsequent disproof, carries much more weight than name calling, FWIW.
I’ve found a lot in common between the way evoatheists argue and the way leftists argue.
I describe their primary rhetorical device as
“proof by arrogant condescension”.
So when asked about what force drags the Sun around the Earth you incorrectly say that the Moon exerts twice as much gravitational force upon the Earth as the Sun does (The Sun exerts one hundred and seventy times as much force upon the Earth as the Moon does).
When confronted with the ludicrousness of this statement you say it was about the tides. Are you proposing that TIDES are what moves the Sun around the Earth? Otherwise what relevance do the tides have?
And please provide the Biblical passages, metaphorical or not, that make you think the Word of God supports your Geocentric model?
How about “for those of us who actually think”? Is that not an ad hominem in suggesting that I do not do any actual thinking?
Not only do I do “actual” thinking, I do “actual” calculations; both my thinking and calculations show that Geocentricism is bunk and that nobody can propose a force necessary and sufficient to drag the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.
Just how gracious can one be to someone who proposes a Geocentric model but will not describe the necessary components that would make the model work or cite the relevant passage of the Bible that he feels suggests a Geocentric universe, makes blatantly incorrect statements that are easily checked by simple mathematics, and keeps saying that anyone who isn't a Geocentrist just doesn't understand the brilliance of his mechanism which he will not explain?
The point is that calculated gravitational force is one thing while observed effects are something else. Geez dude.
"And please provide the Biblical passages, metaphorical or not, that make you think the Word of God supports your Geocentric model?"
and you said "Not really. You're using the old, old model, not the one used by Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis. "
So school me on this. I was not aware that Geocentric models were more efficient and easier to understand than Heliocentric models. Can you provide a useful reference? Also, I don't understand the need to establish a Geocentric model in the first place. Scripture does not PLAINLY teach the model, only references the "...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." This, in my mind, refers to the establishmnet of the earth, and that no other agent than God can fundamentally alter it's position. Quite different than the 7 day creation week, that is PLAINLY taught in Genesis 1&2, Exodus 20:8-11, etc.
Just for the record, I’m not a geocentric dude...
This issue is not like interpreting historical data, this is an observable thing without any “jumps” of extrapolation,
plus, the mathematics involved in the heliocentric model are simpler and more elegant, and thus fit with the general revelation of the rest of the rules of the universe.
I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.
It's not my mechanism and not my model. I already explained that I used to be a geokineticist, but when I started finding scientists who said that the geocentric model is consistent with geokineticism under GR and noted that M-M and Airey's Failure found no motion, I changed my mind.
This idea is really threatening to your worldview, isn't it?
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? [ ] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the earth moves or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is right and the Ptolemaic theory wrong in any meaningful physical sense.
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, Ellis argues. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. Ellis has published a paper on this. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
So the quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis aren't enough to get you started? Don't know how to google 'geocentrism' and start reading? What?
"Also, I don't understand the need to establish a Geocentric model in the first place. Scripture does not PLAINLY teach the model, only references the "...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." This, in my mind, refers to the establishmnet of the earth, and that no other agent than God can fundamentally alter it's position."
Well, there you go. Any geocentric passage is interpreted metaphorically. How is presenting other geocentric passages and arguments going to overcome that belief? It's not possible. You already know what you believe is PLAINLY taught and what is not.
"Quite different than the 7 day creation week, that is PLAINLY taught in Genesis 1&2, Exodus 20:8-11, etc."
In your opinion, geocentrism is NOT PLAINLY taught (even though the Bible was clearly understood as geocentric until Galileo's time) yet the 7-day creation week is PLAINLY taught?
There is nothing I can do to change your opinion. You have to do that yourself, like I did. No one changed my mind for me. I researched the idea myself and found it superior, both Scripturally and scientifically. You will have to do the same. I'm not saying I won't help and try to answer some of your questions, but you have to do this for yourself. You have all the information you need. Far more than I did when I started some 10 years ago or so.
I was not referring to you at all, rather to the audience of the debate. Ad hominem attacks work best for those that do not carefully weigh and evaluate the assertions and argumentsmade by the various parties, but rather choose the side that does a better job demeaning their opponent. Please reconsider my post in this context. I could assert that you possess poor reading comprehension, or that you jump to conclusions. However, reality is we simply miscommunicated, and I did not explicitly, contextually establish myself (and others, "us") as an observer of the debate.
Would you care to re-read the post, and attack to propositions contained therein?
Geocentric mathematics is used in all earth-orbital satellites because it is simpler in that realm and heliocentric mathematics is used in all solar system orbital satellites because it is simpler there. Convenience in mathematics is not a logical reason to adopt a worldview.
After all, the solar system is supposed to be moving through the galaxy, which is supposed to be moving through the universe, yet you don't assume that the solar system is stationary at the center of the universe because the mathematics is simpler. Nor do you adopt universal mathematics and account for all of the motions within the universe because it is supposed to represent reality. So, it is clearly a reasoning-error to say that you believe in geokineticism because interplanetary orbital calculations are easier. While that may be true, it is irrelevant.
Do you realize that GR was developed because M-M unexpectedly returned a 'null result'. Rather than drop their belief in geokineticism, physicists (including Einstein) looked for ways for make geokineticism consistent with no observable motion (both M-M and Airey's Failure) because they 'know' that the earth orbits the sun. The result was GR.
Now, it should be no surprise at all that GR was developed so that coordinate systems are consistent between geokineticism and geocentrism because the foundational observation (M-M null result) is consistent w/ geocentrism. Somehow people aren't able to see that the problem is their 'a priori' assumption of geokineticism, not observations.
In short, to argue that there is any physically significant difference at all between geokineticism and geocentrism is to argue against GR (as Hoyle makes clear).
Are you denying Newtonian gravitational attraction now? Saying that it has not been observed only calculated?
“I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.”
You know guys. Copernican heliocentricity was the first ‘scientific’ issue where large numbers of people believed that the Bible had been ‘shown’ to be false. It was the camel’s nose under the tent. In reality, nothing of the sort had been done. It is the same as the Darwinian ‘revolution’ and long-ages for the earth/universe. The only support for these positions is that large numbers of people believe it.
It took 300 years from Galileo before Ernst Mach proved that the essential rules of geometry would be violated were there any classical physical difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric universe, thereby proving Galileo and Copernicus were wrong to claim that geokineticism was scientifically true. It wasn’t them and isn’t now.
It hasn’t taken nearly that long for the astronomers I quoted to say the same thing wrt GR. GR would be fundamentally violated if there were any relativistic physically significant difference between geocentrism and geokineticism.
I would think that would cause a Christian to pause and reconsider their beliefs here. Just as has been done wrt creation and a young-earth. Geokineticism is based on the same interpretation-method as evolution and an old-earth. The evidence isn’t uniquely there to favor it. Geokineticism is the last giant that opposes your faith. Once that one falls, you are entirely free.
I am free.
No need to be curt. As I stated , either model works, it is all relative to your point of view. I was hoping for links you found that were articulate, intelligent and convincing treatises on geocentrism. Thanks for the helpful tip on Google.
In your opinion, geocentrism is NOT PLAINLY taught (even though the Bible was clearly understood as geocentric until Galileo's time) yet the 7-day creation week is PLAINLY taught?
I believe the Bible is inspired, and inerrant in it's original manuscripts, and what we hold today is 99.9% the same as what was written. I'm not sure that the Bible was asserted to prove geocentrism, just that the model fit the scripture. The sun does rise and set, as we all know, from our perspective on earth. For all intents and purposes, everything revolves around the earth, since this is our home, our point of reference. I have seen 3 scripture references (1 Chron 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10) that paraphrased state '...cannot be moved.' This could be interpreted to mean something different other than the earth is motionless in space.
The 7 day creation account, as 6 literal creation days and 1 day of rest, is firmly established, and has dramtically more scriptual support. To try to reinterpret it requires omitting, obfuscating, and allegorizing the plain intention of the written word. Also, it is crucial to our understanding of God, man, original sin, death, decay, etc.
Do you know how many assumptions are built into those calculated values? The theory has formulas, the formulas have factors, the values of the factors are assumed so that the formulas fit the theory fit the observations.
When those values don't work out, 'dark matter' is invoked or 'large iron cores' or Saturn being 'lighter than water' as necessary.
Try this. Assume that Saturn has the same density as Mercury and see if your gravitational calculations 'work'. They don't. The values are forced into the formula into the theory to fit the observations.
Not that you understand any of this...