Magnetic Fields of the Planets
Magnetic Fields of the Planets
[An excerpt: The Age of the Universe by Dr. Jason Lisle]
Many of the planets of the solar system also have strong dipole magnetic fields. Jupiter’s magnetic field, for example, is extremely powerful. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are also quite strong. If these planets were really billions of years old (as secular astronomers believe), their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet, they are not. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
The suggestion that the solar system is only thousands of years old is, of course, an intolerable position for those who believe in particles-to-people evolution. The vast ages are required for their worldview, and so must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the apparent youth of the universe must be explained away by the addition of auxiliary hypotheses. For example, secular astronomers have proposed that planetary magnetic fields can be “recharged” over time. Specifically, they invoke the idea of a “magnetic dynamo” powering the magnetic fields of planets. The basic idea is that motion within the planets can regenerate the magnetic fields so that the total field strength will not decay. However, the planets do not fit the conditions necessary to drive such a dynamo. The simplest explanation is that the solar system is much younger than billions of years.
Dr. Russ Humphreys, (a Ph.D. physicist and biblical creationist) has produced a model of planetary magnetic fields which can explain their present strengths in terms of biblical creation. In essence, the model estimates the initial strength of each magnetic field at the moment of its creation, then the model computes their present strengths based on 6,000 years of decay from electrical resistance. Impressively, this biblically based model is able to account for the present measured magnetic fields of all the known planets and even many of the moons as well.
Of course, almost any model can be “adjusted” to fit existing data, so it is perhaps even more impressive that Dr. Humphreys’ model successfully predicted the present magnetic field strengths of the planets Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. Specific, successful predictions are the mark of a good scientific model. Dr. Humphreys also predicted that Mars would have remanent (permanent) magnetism, which has now been confirmed. Remanent magnetism occurs in rocks which cooled and solidified in the presence of an external magnetic field. Such remanent magnetism is also found on the moon. This confirms that both the moon and Mars once had strong magnetic fields as expected in the Humphreys model. Planetary magnetic fields strongly support the biblical age of the solar system.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-2
Footnotes
10.D.R. Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary
Magnetic Fields,” Creation Research Society
Quarterly 21 (3) (December 1984). Back
11.However, Pluto’s magnetic field has not yet been
measured. According to Dr. Humphreys’ model, Pluto
should not have an appreciable magnetic field. Back
12.www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0403.pdf,
p. 8.
The successful predictions by Dr. Humphreys were based on evidence. Isn't that the way science is supposed to work? The Big Bang theory is anti-God. Is it also anti-knowledge?
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Physicists think it would take billions of years for that energy to run down....[Y]our guy is stuffed with prunes..."
Barbo, I'm supposed to be nice to you. I'm supposed to discuss things--compare, contrast--lest I find myself in the ban bin all over again. :shocked:
Do you
think we know all that there is to know know about the
outer planets? You naturalists love time curing
all things to maintain your worldview. Then, when
we throw you a "time" bone, you do not like the results.
You cannot have it both ways.
[People to particles]
Are you aware of the necessity for survival value? Maybe we should start a thread about that.
"We do however have evidence in the geologic record of a magnetic shift that occurred many years ago where earths field reversed."
It may happen again. Do you think God created the
outer planets different intentionally?
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[P]ost your numbers and show us why physics is wrong."
"[S]how us why physics is wrong."
There is nothing wrong with the science. Naturalists and creationists agree that Jupiter has a strong magnetic field. Should it if the universe is "billions of years" old?
"There are many honest creationists."
That's all I'm asking you to acknowledge. And, there are many fine naturalists. I'm not going to believe a creationist because he "says so" and neither should you. Each looks at the evidence but they come up with different conclusions. Based on the evidence, which conclusion is more logical? What hoops must scientists jump through to believe a thing? I submit the naturalist must jump through more. Why don't we start keeping score on assumptions made to maintain a worldview?
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Here's the other side of the argument: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tic_field.html"
We have to study both sides of the argument. I wonder if naturalists (laymen) are willing to do the same.
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[S]how the numbers. You don't know whether that assertion [Jupiter should not have a strong magnetic field] is right or wrong, do you?"
Here are some specifics on that. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html Why do you think Dr. Russell Humphrey's predictions were more accurate?
"As you learned, the magnetic field of Jupiter is consistent with billions of years and the laws of physics."
Dr. Humphreys comes to a different
conclusion: "In summary, the magnetism of the
outer planets falls within the bounds of our creationist
theory." The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,
Humphreys.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
The Outer Planets
Jupiter is the largest and most massive object orbiting
the Sun. The Pioneer and Voyager missions to this
awesome planet showed that it also has an intense
magnetic field. Its magnetic moment is second only to
the Sun's:41
M = 1.55 x 1027 J/T (data).
(23)
If we use our arbitrary value of k = 0.25 in equation
(1) to calculate Jupiter's magnetic moment at creation,
we get a value less than this. The minimum alignment
fraction which will give the present field is 0.87. But
since the field must have decayed at least somewhat
since creation, the fraction must have been greater. If
we use the maximum alignment fraction, k = 1.0, then we
get a maximum value for Jupiter's magnetic moment at
creation:
Mc < 1.79 x 1027 J/T (theory).
(24)
So it looks as if God pulled out nearly all the organ
stops when He orchestrated Jupiter. Not only did He
create a larger mass of water, but He lined up more than
90 percent of the water's hydrogen nuclei. These two
values imply that Jupiter's decay time is greater than
41000 years.
We have no direct measurements on Jupiter's core radius
R yet. But we can use Jupiter's average surface radius
Rs, 70000 km, to express the average core conductivity
of equation (6) as a function of R/Rs:
σ = (π2T/µo Rs2)(Rs/R)2.
(25)
Using the above decay time in (25) gives us a minimum
value for Jupiter's core conductivity:
σ > (Rs/R)2(2100 mhos/meter).
(26)
From Jupiter's low density and equatorial bulge,
planetologists estimate that it is mostly hydrogen and
some helium with a rocklike inner core. The hydrogen is
probably in a liquid state (possibly metallic also)
below about 0.8 Jovian radii from the center.42 Using
this in equation (26) shows that the average core
conductivity is greater than 3000 mhos/meter. This value
is some what lower than theoretical estimates of the
conductivity of liquid metallic hydrogen. But it is
consistent with the estimated conductivity of liquid
molecular hydrogen. At present there are not
enough experimental data on the conductivity of hydrogen
at high pressures and temperatures to shed further
light."
The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields
, Humphreys.
Where is he wrong?
"It appears he has assumed that there was only so much thermal energy in Jupiter and that there is no source of renewal."
He admits that there is not enough
data to shed further light. Nevertheless Spike
Psarris, author of Jupiter, King of the planets and
testament to our Creator says: "Truly, Jupiter’s
size, beauty, and grandeur are a wonderful testament to
our Creator—the God of the Bible, who not only made the
stars and planets (for our benefit—Genesis 1:14–19), but
also us!"
http://creation.com/jupiter-king-of-the-planets-and-testament-to-our-creator
Jupiter, King of the planets and testament to our
Creator, Psarris.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "We, the naturalists and secularists, have already won: we have all the wealth and all the power. What we say goes. Any who oppose us are summarily curb-stomped. Enjoy your persecution!"
Oh sure. Sometimes we are
persecuted. Sometimes we're just dopes.
The report of my death was an exaggeration. When we
dicussed epitaphs I did not know I'd be needing my own
so quickly. You missed me--say it or I'll start throwing
things.
This is what we deal with--evolution is science end of
debate. Who limits science--the naturalist who will not
allow a supernatural explanation or the creationist who
will allow it once in a great while? God is not bound by
the rules of nature.
We will win you for the kingdom. Prepare for a white
robe.
Magnetic
Fields of the Planets