...
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
...

Full article at http://www.icr.org/article/mercurys-fad ... ield-fits/

I often heard this argument from Creationists that Humphrey's model accurate predicts planetary magnetic fields (down to the dipole strength) while the Dynamo theory fails miserably (predicting that a planet would have magnetism when it actually doesn't and vice-versa).

What is the catch here ? Also, is there any update on this after more accurate 2011 measurements, which Science published on September 30?

Seem to be another "Lying for Jebus" moment.

Apparently the magnetic field is quite stable though affected by the solar winds from the sun. This makes sense due to the proximity to the star Sol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29#Magnetic_field_and_magnetosphere

During its second flyby of the planet on October 6, 2008, MESSENGER discovered that Mercury’s magnetic field can be extremely "leaky." The spacecraft encountered magnetic "tornadoes" – twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting the planetary magnetic field to interplanetary space – that were up to 800 km wide or a third of the radius of the planet. These 'tornadoes' form when magnetic fields carried by the solar wind connect to Mercury's magnetic field. As the solar wind blows past Mercury's field, these joined magnetic fields are carried with it and twist up into vortex-like structures. These twisted magnetic flux tubes, technically known as flux transfer events, form open windows in the planet's magnetic shield through which the solar wind may enter and directly impact Mercury's surface.

amateur wrote:

What is the catch here ?

From "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields

D. Russell Humphreys

CRSQ Volume 21, Number 3 (December 1984)"

"To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water. One of the Scriptures is the last part of 2 Peter 3:5 (NASB): ". . . and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Shortly after that, God must have transformed much of the water into other matter, such as iron, silicon, minerals, and rock."
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... /21_3.html

The underlined bit says it all (my underlining).

...evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields...

What?

Are magnetic fields naturally selected for their greater fitness?

Evolving wrote:

...evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields...

What?

Are magnetic fields naturally selected for their greater fitness?

To be fair, he didn't say evolution via natural selection. Given that evolution in it's most general usage just means change over time, it reasonably describes the current theories on planetary formation.
There's still plenty of whacked out shit to critise him for though.

trubble76 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

...evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields...

What?

Are magnetic fields naturally selected for their greater fitness?

To be fair, he didn't say evolution via natural selection. Given that evolution in it's most general usage just means change over time, it reasonably describes the current theories on planetary formation.
There's still plenty of whacked out shit to critise him for though.

In cretinist language, "evolutionary" means anything that disagrees with them.

trubble76 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

...evolutionary theories of planetary magnetic fields...

What?

Are magnetic fields naturally selected for their greater fitness?

To be fair, he didn't say evolution via natural selection. Given that evolution in it's most general usage just means change over time, it reasonably describes the current theories on planetary formation.
There's still plenty of whacked out shit to critise him for though.

But they're not known as evolutionary theories.

Spearthrower wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

What?

Are magnetic fields naturally selected for their greater fitness?

To be fair, he didn't say evolution via natural selection. Given that evolution in it's most general usage just means change over time, it reasonably describes the current theories on planetary formation.
There's still plenty of whacked out shit to critise him for though.

But they're not known as evolutionary theories.

Why get bogged down in such a minor point? The rest of what he said is weapons-grade bolognium, concentrating about subtle disagreements on the usage of the word "evolution" is self-defeating.

trubble76 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

To be fair, he didn't say evolution via natural selection. Given that evolution in it's most general usage just means change over time, it reasonably describes the current theories on planetary formation.
There's still plenty of whacked out shit to critise him for though.

But they're not known as evolutionary theories.

Why get bogged down in such a minor point? The rest of what he said is weapons-grade bolognium, concentrating about subtle disagreements on the usage of the word "evolution" is self-defeating.

Have you read Rod's posts recently?

By labelling something 'evolutionary', it gets assigned a whole heap of baggage and dismissed as 'presuppositional'. I think it's best to nip this nefarious equivocation in the bud.

Also, you must know of Kent Hovind's specious 6 types of evolution? Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and Micro: all of which he conflates into 'evolutionary theory' and lies that only the last has scientific evidence. This is widely spread in Creationist circles, so you can safely assume this is the kind of thing Humphreys is playing to.

Edit: I had to go looking for the source, and couldn't remember Hovind's name at first so I typed 'creationist liar types of evolution' - it worked!

http://www.drdino.com/six-meanings-of-evolution/

Thanks for the replies, but I don't think they answer my questions. If Humphrey's model could accurately predict planetary magnetic fields (however ridiculous his presuppositions may be), why it cannot be considered a valid model? And is it true that the mainstream model (Dynamo?) fails at even basic predictions?

amateur wrote:Thanks for the replies, but I don't think they answer my questions. If Humphrey's model could accurately predict planetary magnetic fields (however ridiculous his presuppositions may be), why it cannot be considered a valid model? And is it true that the mainstream model (Dynamo?) fails at even basic predictions?

Not enough data points.

amateur wrote:Thanks for the replies, but I don't think they answer my questions. If Humphrey's model could accurately predict planetary magnetic fields (however ridiculous his presuppositions may be), why it cannot be considered a valid model?

From a swift reading of his work I would say that his theory is invalid because it is based on pure nonsense i.e. that the origin of the earth and planets was that they were created as spheres of pure water that at some later point god transmuted to the elements that we now observe. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis whereas there is overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesese that the heavy elements were created in stars via nuclear synthesis and that planets (and new stars) are created by accretion of matter through gravitation.

As for his predictions - if you could find the datasets he used and an exact methodology he used to generate his predictions, I'll have a look at it.

amateur wrote:
And is it true that the mainstream model (Dynamo?) fails at even basic predictions?

As far as I know, the dynamo model works fine!
I think the issues re: making predictions is basically a problem of computability. The earths magnetic field system is very big and complicated. the models we have can give an overview of what's happening, but to make very fine predictions is possibly near impossible. An another example of such a model is the weather systems on earth.

amateur wrote:
I often heard this argument from Creationists that Humphrey's model accurate predicts planetary magnetic fields (down to the dipole strength) while the Dynamo theory fails miserably (predicting that a planet would have magnetism when it actually doesn't and vice-versa)

Humphreys predicted planetary magnetic fields down to an order of magnitude, using a model with a free parameter, and Tim Thompson makes a good case that he picked that free parameter to obtain values which anyone could have guessed by looking at a table of known planetary magnetic fields. On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field, near the bottom after subheading "Current Creationist Status" and after the equations. Mercury III is also interesting. Yes, the ICR article claims that a predicted 4% drop fits an observed 27% change. My bet's on instrumentation error for that 27%, but 4% = 27% ain't close to true.

Spearthrower wrote:

amateur wrote:Thanks for the replies, but I don't think they answer my questions. If Humphrey's model could accurately predict planetary magnetic fields (however ridiculous his presuppositions may be), why it cannot be considered a valid model? And is it true that the mainstream model (Dynamo?) fails at even basic predictions?

Not enough data points.

Yup,agreed. Wonder why I didn't think of that earlier.

campermon wrote:

From a swift reading of his work I would say that his theory is invalid because it is based on pure nonsense i.e. that the origin of the earth and planets was that they were created as spheres of pure water that at some later point god transmuted to the elements that we now observe. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis whereas there is overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesese that the heavy elements were created in stars via nuclear synthesis and that planets (and new stars) are created by accretion of matter through gravitation.

As for his predictions - if you could find the datasets he used and an exact methodology he used to generate his predictions, I'll have a look at it.

Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure regarding the data sets but you can check here once http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... /21_3.html

campermon wrote:

amateur wrote:
And is it true that the mainstream model (Dynamo?) fails at even basic predictions?

As far as I know, the dynamo model works fine!
I think the issues re: making predictions is basically a problem of computability. The earths magnetic field system is very big and complicated. the models we have can give an overview of what's happening, but to make very fine predictions is possibly near impossible. An another example of such a model is the weather systems on earth.

Yup, agreed. But what about the claim that Dynamo theory, based on rotation speed, predicts Mars would have a planetary magnetic field while it actually doesn't and Mercury is expected not to have magnetic field while it actually has?

JonF wrote:

amateur wrote:
I often heard this argument from Creationists that Humphrey's model accurate predicts planetary magnetic fields (down to the dipole strength) while the Dynamo theory fails miserably (predicting that a planet would have magnetism when it actually doesn't and vice-versa)

Humphreys predicted planetary magnetic fields down to an order of magnitude, using a model with a free parameter, and Tim Thompson makes a good case that he picked that free parameter to obtain values which anyone could have guessed by looking at a table of known planetary magnetic fields. On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field, near the bottom after subheading "Current Creationist Status" and after the equations. Mercury III is also interesting. Yes, the ICR article claims that a predicted 4% drop fits an observed 27% change. My bet's on instrumentation error for that 27%, but 4% = 27% ain't close to true.

Thanks, I did check talk origins after posting the thread here. I understand it better now and agree Humphrey's model looks like something created to match the guess estimates.

amateur wrote:Yup, agreed. But what about the claim that Dynamo theory, based on rotation speed, predicts Mars would have a planetary magnetic field while it actually doesn't and Mercury is expected not to have magnetic field while it actually has?

My understanding is that dynamo theory only predicts a magnetic field for planets that possess a specific feature. Namely, a fluid interior that is not only capable of lagging behind the outer crust, but which is also capable of maintaining convection currents, and possesses a certain level of electrical conductivity. Without this, you don't have a basis for the dynamo effect to occur. In the case of stars, they have ionised gas plasma as their convecting and electrically conducting fluid, which naturally gives rise to a large magnetic field once current flows in that convecting and conducting medium.

Mars doesn't have a fluid interior, and so dynamo theory is simply inapplicable. The exact nature of Mercury's interior is still unresolved at the moment, and parking instruments on the surface to analyse the interior (possibly using seismic techniques) is difficult and expensive.

The link between angular momentum and magnetic moment is an old idea, one originally considered worth investigating further by the physicist P. M. S. Blackett. He abandoned that idea, after he conducted experiments to determine whether such a link actually existed. Those experiments yielded a negative result.

Calilasseia wrote:

amateur wrote:Yup, agreed. But what about the claim that Dynamo theory, based on rotation speed, predicts Mars would have a planetary magnetic field while it actually doesn't and Mercury is expected not to have magnetic field while it actually has?

My understanding is that dynamo theory only predicts a magnetic field for planets that possess a specific feature. Namely, a fluid interior that is not only capable of lagging behind the outer crust, but which is also capable of maintaining convection currents, and possesses a certain level of electrical conductivity. Without this, you don't have a basis for the dynamo effect to occur. In the case of stars, they have ionised gas plasma as their convecting and electrically conducting fluid, which naturally gives rise to a large magnetic field once current flows in that convecting and conducting medium.

Mars doesn't have a fluid interior, and so dynamo theory is simply inapplicable. The exact nature of Mercury's interior is still unresolved at the moment, and parking instruments on the surface to analyse the interior (possibly using seismic techniques) is difficult and expensive.

The link between angular momentum and magnetic moment is an old idea, one originally considered worth investigating further by the physicist P. M. S. Blackett. He abandoned that idea, after he conducted experiments to determine whether such a link actually existed. Those experiments yielded a negative result.

That helps, thanks.