Magnetic Field Predictions

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Yes, and get this...

​

He based his theory off the Bible, which says everything was formed from water. Woo hoo!

​

David

---

Bzzzzt you're both wrong and right. Hunphrey's correctly predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields. However, the prediction is not all it's cracked up to be. Without delving into all the details his prediction was akin to a prediction like this:"Tiger Woods will finish the PGA championship with a 4 round total between 0 and 600000."How tough is that?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Yes, and get this...

​

He based his theory off the Bible, which says everything was formed from water. Woo hoo!

​

David

---

​

Bzzzzt you're both wrong and right. Hunphrey's correctly predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields. However, the prediction is not all it's cracked up to be. Without delving into all the details his prediction was akin to a prediction like this:

​

"Tiger Woods will finish the PGA championship with a 4 round total between 0 and 600000."

​

How tough is that?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

​

---

Look, I was right!! I used evolutionary assumptions to make my prediction! whoo-hooPGA final-round scoresCheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]their [geophysicists']model-the dynamo model I believe?
The dynamo model is the evolutionist old earth model.
Also, both Uranus and Neptune have sharply tilted magnetic fields. According to the dynamo model, it would be when they are undergoing a magnetic reversal. However, it is unlikely that they should be undergoing this reversal at the same time. [/QUOTE]JM: Please show me where any of these features go against what geophysicists thought? For example, the early version of Merrill and McElhinney's book says this about Uranus and Neptune:
"Too little observational evidence to make any convincing statements although dynamos have been speculated to exist in Uranus and Neptune" What I would like to see is a collection of estimates for the magnetic moment of these planetary fields in the conventional literature. My guess, if these do exist, is that there are any number of 'order of magnitude' predictions that were also correct.Furthermore, Humprehy's notes:
Because of the uncertainty about the interiors of those planets, I widened my prediction to "on the order of' 10²⁴ A m², by which I meant that the magnetic moments would be between 1 x 10²³ and 1 x 10²⁵ A m²Now given that Jupiter has a magnetic moment of 1.8 x 10^4 that of earth and Saturn 5 x 10^2 that of Earth and given that Uranus and Neptune weigh about .15 the mass of Saturn, then using mass alone one would predict a moment of 'on the order of 10^24'. Furthermore, by bracketing the guess within two orders of magnitude it more or less encompassed enough of a range to guarantee success based solely on the mass of the planets and the knowledge of Jupiter and Saturn's magnetic fields. So, Humphrey's made some good guesses, but that's all. Furthermore, why would Humprhey's worry about the interiors at all? He's already said that the planets all started off as water. Surely there should be no ambiguity in his estimates?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Doesn't Humphrey's reference the numbers of Evolutionists before voyager?

​

And I think we know what is meant by Evolutionist We've included every other branch of Science in the definition, there is no reason to stop at Astronomy and Physics.

​

David

---

JM: He gives one reference. I countered that with a second reference that says 'too little information'. Given the debates about magnetic fields at the time, I suspect it would be rather easy to find an estimate directly opposed to another. In short, Humphreys made a broad guess that happened to be right. There is nothing in his hypothesis to suggest that it was anything more than a lucky 'ballpark' (in this case a large ballpark) estimate.CheersJoe Meert