Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:15 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,694 Year: 4,731/19,786 Month: 853/873 Week: 209/376 Day: 2/57 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Magnetic Field Predictions
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 18 (15594)
08-18-2002 12:15 AM


I'm wondering if there is already a thread I can read concerning Humphrey's claim that he accurately predicted magnetic fields, compared with evolutionists that were off base.

David


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by blitz77, posted 08-18-2002 4:19 AM halcyonwaters has responded

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 18 (15597)
08-18-2002 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by halcyonwaters
08-18-2002 12:15 AM


Are you referring to the predictions made by Humphrey concerning the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune? His predictions were that the fields were about 100 000 times what mainstream science had predicted, and he was proven right when Voyager made the measurements.

However, I don't think there is a thread here regarding that (I may be wrong, maybe there is?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-18-2002 12:15 AM halcyonwaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-18-2002 5:25 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 18 (15599)
08-18-2002 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by blitz77
08-18-2002 4:19 AM


Yes, and get this...

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

David


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by blitz77, posted 08-18-2002 4:19 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 08-18-2002 9:17 AM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 4 of 18 (15600)
08-18-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by halcyonwaters
08-18-2002 5:25 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-18-2002 5:25 AM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 7:36 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 7:38 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 5 of 18 (15669)
08-19-2002 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
08-18-2002 9:17 AM


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-hoo

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/pga/story?id=1419581

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 08-18-2002 9:17 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 18 (15670)
08-19-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
08-18-2002 9:17 AM


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

How tough is that?


Didn't he predict that the magnetic field would be about 100 000 times that of evolutionary predictions in the Creation Research Society Quarterly article in December, 1984? And the result was smack bang in the middle, about 100 000 times? He predicted the dipole moment strength to be "on the order of 10^24 J/T". The dipole moment for Uranus is 3.7 x 10^24 J/T, while for Neptune it is 2.1 x 10^24 J/T, which agree with his prediction in one order of magnitude, and disagrees with the evolutionary prediction by about 5 magnitudes.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 08-18-2002 9:17 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 08-19-2002 8:17 AM blitz77 has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (15674)
08-19-2002 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by blitz77
08-19-2002 7:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Didn't he predict that the magnetic field would be about 100 000 times that of evolutionary predictions

Sorry Blitz, but when have evolutionary biologists predicted magnetic fields for a planet?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 7:38 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 8:19 AM John has responded

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 18 (15675)
08-19-2002 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
08-19-2002 8:17 AM


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.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 08-19-2002 8:17 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 08-19-2002 8:21 AM blitz77 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 10:57 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 18 (15676)
08-19-2002 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by blitz77
08-19-2002 8:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
their [geophysicists']model-the dynamo model I believe?


Right--- geophysicics not evolutionary biology.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 8:19 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 10 of 18 (15691)
08-19-2002 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by blitz77
08-19-2002 8:19 AM


[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 m2

Now 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?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by blitz77, posted 08-19-2002 8:19 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 5:02 PM Joe Meert has responded

  
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 18 (15703)
08-19-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joe Meert
08-19-2002 10:57 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 10:57 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2002 5:08 PM halcyonwaters has not yet responded
 Message 13 by wj, posted 08-20-2002 1:07 AM halcyonwaters has responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 18 (15705)
08-19-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by halcyonwaters
08-19-2002 5:02 PM


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.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 5:02 PM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 18 (15740)
08-20-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by halcyonwaters
08-19-2002 5:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
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


True, in creationists' minds "evolution" means anything in conventional science which is contrary to their particular interpretation of their particular holy scripture. So, physics has to be reinterpreted or rejected if is the basis of dating methods which show an earth and universe more than 10,000 years old. Astronomy and cosmology have to be reinterpreted or rejected if they evidence a universe more than 10,000 years old. Geology has to be reinterpreted or rejected if it evidences an earth more than 10,000 years old or is inconsistent with a Noachian flood. Paleontology has to be reinterpreted or rejected if it shows evidence of the transition of past living organisms beyond the created "kinds". Biology has to be reinterpreted or rejected if it evidences the common ancestry of man and all living organisms and fails to place man at the apex of creation.

Creationists long for the certainties of the past - where the answer to any enquiry was goddunit. They would prefer to sacrifice the knowledge and responsibility which has been placed in man's hands through scientific endeavour and revert to an unquestioning dark ages mindset.

I only wish that creationists would put their faith where their words are and forego modern "evolutionary" medicine and rely on faith healing. I'm sure it would readily solve the problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 5:02 PM halcyonwaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-20-2002 5:20 AM wj has not yet responded

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5987 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 14 of 18 (15750)
08-20-2002 2:11 AM


bah wj, science can only pertains to how, when, what and where. not why.
im a die hard christian and i couldnt care less how old the earth is according to scientific dating methods or even how old it actually is. those dating methods do assume that time and conditions stayed the same throughout history. so it is just a guess not how it actually went down. it is however a very good timeline. just that the scale of it can waver.
  
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 18 (15762)
08-20-2002 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by wj
08-20-2002 1:07 AM


quote:
I only wish that creationists would put their faith where their words are and forego modern "evolutionary" medicine and rely on faith healing. I'm sure it would readily solve the problem.

Here we go with the old bait-n-switch! USAToday tried to do that recently. They started talking about how with Evolutionary Science we're able to develop cures for a variety of diseases and disorders relating to our Genes.

Thus, if we don't teach we evolved into our present form, all of that research will stop. I don't want to call anyone dishonest... but surely they see the difference. Surely you must see the difference!

David


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wj, posted 08-20-2002 1:07 AM wj has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John, posted 08-20-2002 9:00 AM halcyonwaters has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Mike Holland, posted 10-12-2002 9:42 AM halcyonwaters has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019