Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

[Astrophile]

I just recently discovered that the moon and Mars have lost their magnetic fields. Doesn't this mean that earth's magnetic field isn't a dynamo? What are the differences between Earth's vs Mars vs Earth's moon?

The Earth has a molten iron core that is in a state of convection; Mars and the Moon do not.

Creation believes that the earth's magnetic field was given by God, has been decaying and will run out around year 3000. I don't think there's any argument about the earth's magnetic field weakening.

You might be interested in these plots of the variations in the strength of the geomagnetic field during the last 3000 years. They show that the field has varied over a range of about 1.7:1 during that time, and that there have been both increases and decreases in its strength; there has not been a continuous exponential decrease.

 

[Astrophile]

So if the earth looses its magnetic field, it destroys the atmosphere?

Not necessarily. Venus has no magnetic field, but it has the densest and most massive atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets.

 

[USincognito]

It's assumed because of evolutionary thinking producing 4.5 billions of years of existence that it is permanent or very long-time. The magnetic field as decaying theory to its end fits better with a 6,000 year-old Earth.

What the heck is "evolutionary thinking"?
What does evolution have to do with geophysics?
The magnetic field is not decaying.

 

[jamesbond007]

The Earth has a molten iron core that is in a state of convection; Mars and the Moon do not.



You might be interested in these plots of the variations in the strength of the geomagnetic field during the last 3000 years. They show that the field has varied over a range of about 1.7:1 during that time, and that there have been both increases and decreases in its strength; there has not been a continuous exponential decrease.


View attachment 227710

Yes, I agree about Earth's molten core. It seems that we are truly blessed, but in terms of planets, scientists rate us average in terms of habitability index. Yet, we can't seem to find another planet or moon in the Milky Way galaxy that meets or exceeds it in terms of habitability.

It seems that the graphs you posted about the last 3,000 years contradict the Journal of Geophysical Research.

"The work, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, is an important step towards developing a new method for studying the history of Earth's magnetic field, which should shed light on why its strength has been declining over the past three thousand years."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-cosmic-rays-reveal-event-earth.html#jCp

 

[jamesbond007]

What the heck is "evolutionary thinking"?
What does evolution have to do with geophysics?
The magnetic field is not decaying.

Aren't you suppose to know science? I've learned about evolution and thought evolution was correct at first. However, prior to it, today's senior adults were taught the earth and universe were eternal (steady state theory). Wouldn't that affect earth's biology?

People who claim solely ToE are not well informed I'm afraid. Prior to ToE was evolutionary thinking.

 

[Job 33:6]

@jamesbond007

"Yet, we can't seem to find another planet or moon in the Milky Way galaxy that meets or exceeds it in terms of habitability"

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

 

[Job 33:6]

@jamesbond007

I just wanted to add, thanks for discussing the earths magnetic field, its a topic i rarely talk about, so its nice being drawn back into an interesting topic.

I think it is reasonable, given the earths heavy metal core, and liquid convection in the planet, that this convection would produce a magnetic field.

I not know why young earthers would suggest that there is no source for the magnetic field, or that the planet itself doesn't produce it. Seems to strange to me, given that the earth has molten features and is filled with iron. But for people who did suggest this, i probably wouldnt bother much with them.

 

[sfs]

Aren't you suppose to know science? I've learned about evolution and thought evolution was correct at first. However, prior to it, today's senior adults were taught the earth and universe were eternal (steady state theory). Wouldn't that affect earth's biology?

Um, prior to what? Evolution? The steady state theory of cosmology was introduced in the 1940s, long after the introduction of evolution. There were 19th century geologists who thought that the earth was infinitely old, but that was geology, not evolution. I still don't know what you mean by evolutionary thinking producing a 4.5 billion year age of the earth. Radiometric dating produced the estimates of the age of the earth, not biology.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, I agree about Earth's molten core. It seems that we are truly blessed, but in terms of planets, scientists rate us average in terms of habitability index. Yet, we can't seem to find another planet or moon in the Milky Way galaxy that meets or exceeds it in terms of habitability.

Since the first exoplanet was discovered less than 25 years ago, it is hardly surprising that we haven't yet found any habitable ones. We have to work patiently; Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

It seems that the graphs you posted about the last 3,000 years contradict the Journal of Geophysical Research.

"The work, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, is an important step towards developing a new method for studying the history of Earth's magnetic field, which should shed light on why its strength has been declining over the past three thousand years."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-11-cosmic-rays-reveal-event-earth.html#jCp

Yes, there has been a general decrease in the strength of the Earth's magnetic field in the last 3000 years, but it has been interrupted by occasional increases. Also, your link says

41 000 years ago, the Earth's magnetic field faded and practically disappeared, leaving our planet unprotected from the bombardment of cosmic rays. Evidence for this event has been found in ocean sediment cores

If the magnetic field practically disappeared 41000 years ago, its strength must have increased after that event in order to reach the value that it had 3000 years ago.

Your link also says

Far from being constant, the magnetic field has undergone many reversals, with the North magnetic pole shifting to the South geographic pole. Such reversals are always accompanied by a disappearance of the magnetic field. The last such reversal took place 780 000 years ago.

Again, if the geomagnetic field disappeared 780,000 years ago and during many previous magnetic reversals, it must have increased again after the reversals. These quotations from your link show that the geomagnetic field has disappeared and then recovered many times; it has not been decreasing continuously since the Earth was formed. There is nothing in your link that supports the creationist ideas that the geomagnetic field has always decreased exponentially with a half-life of a few thousand years and that therefore the dynamo theory must be false.

 

[jamesbond007]

@jamesbond007

"Yet, we can't seem to find another planet or moon in the Milky Way galaxy that meets or exceeds it in terms of habitability"

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

Meh. I trust the probes which is more realistic. It's Europa, Titan and Mars (huge longshot). Before that, I think we'll nuke a large meteor or asteroid to launching a nuke from space.

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

Based on the probes, I would not trust those exoplanets. I enjoy living on earth and would consider a vacation on a space station. As each year passes, I think we'll end up being uniplanetary. Just haven't seen the technological breakthrough to get us there.

 

[jamesbond007]

@jamesbond007

I just wanted to add, thanks for discussing the earths magnetic field, its a topic i rarely talk about, so its nice being drawn back into an interesting topic.

I think it is reasonable, given the earths heavy metal core, and liquid convection in the planet, that this convection would produce a magnetic field.

I not know why young earthers would suggest that there is no source for the magnetic field, or that the planet itself doesn't produce it. Seems to strange to me, given that the earth has molten features and is filled with iron. But for people who did suggest this, i probably wouldnt bother much with them.

Creation scientists use it to show a young earth based on the decay of last 3,000 years. However, it stops there as Thomas Barnes was their last source. I found the trio of EU satellite launchings, so started to keep track again.

 

[jamesbond007]

Um, prior to what? Evolution? The steady state theory of cosmology was introduced in the 1940s, long after the introduction of evolution. There were 19th century geologists who thought that the earth was infinitely old, but that was geology, not evolution. I still don't know what you mean by evolutionary thinking producing a 4.5 billion year age of the earth. Radiometric dating produced the estimates of the age of the earth, not biology.

Yes, prior to all that. At one time, creation scientists ruled instead of secular, i.e. atheist scientists, we have today.

History of Evolutionary Thought

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, prior to all that. At one time, creation scientists ruled instead of secular, i.e. atheist scientists, we have today.

History of Evolutionary Thought

You link describes how "Earth's history, life's history, mechanisms of evolution, and development and genetics — has contributed to our current understanding of evolution." not the other way round as you appeared to be suggesting.

As a side note, conflating modern science with atheism is ignorant and a sure-fire way of losing credibility in these debates. Especially as two christian scientists have responded to you on this very page.

 

[sfs]

Yes, prior to all that. At one time, creation scientists ruled instead of secular, i.e. atheist scientists, we have today.

History of Evolutionary Thought

Your reply and link leave me more baffled than before. It was largely Christian naturalists who created the science of geology and who determined that the Earth was old. It had nothing to do with evolution. Once again -- what are you talking about?

 

[jamesbond007]

Your reply and link leave me more baffled than before. It was largely Christian naturalists who created the science of geology and who determined that the Earth was old. It had nothing to do with evolution. Once again -- what are you talking about?

I just explained lol. What are you talking about?

Who was the father of geology? I thought he was atheist like Charles Lyell.

 

[sfs]

I just explained lol. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the failure of your explanation to, you know, explain. I'm talking about what you wrote before: "I've learned about evolution and thought evolution was correct at first. However, prior to it, today's senior adults were taught the earth and universe were eternal (steady state theory). Wouldn't that affect earth's biology?" When were today's senior adults taught that the earth was eternal? How was that prior to evolution? When did evolutionary thought have anything to do with determining how old the earth is?

 

[jamesbond007]

You link describes how "Earth's history, life's history, mechanisms of evolution, and development and genetics — has contributed to our current understanding of evolution." not the other way round as you appeared to be suggesting.

As a side note, conflating modern science with atheism is ignorant and a sure-fire way of losing credibility in these debates. Especially as two christian scientists have responded to you on this very page.

I don't want to spend much time on hijacking.

I'm pointing out that evolutionary thinking has a history and not just ToE. This is what I studied and believed in until 2007 when I began to question evolution (especially in 2011). Around 2012, I became Christian and studied the Bible and creation science.

Today's science is conflated with atheism. They won't accept God, the supernatural or the Bible. It's secular science, but I call it atheist science.

 

[jamesbond007]

I'm talking about the failure of your explanation to, you know, explain. I'm talking about what you wrote before: "I've learned about evolution and thought evolution was correct at first. However, prior to it, today's senior adults were taught the earth and universe were eternal (steady state theory). Wouldn't that affect earth's biology?" When were today's senior adults taught that the earth was eternal? How was that prior to evolution? When did evolutionary thought have anything to do with determining how old the earth is?

I answered your question. Why don't you answer mine since you're going off topic?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't want to spend much time on hijacking.

I'm pointing out that evolutionary thinking has a history and not just ToE. This is what I studied and believed in until 2007 when I began to question evolution (especially in 2011). Around 2012, I became Christian and studied the Bible and creation science.

Today's science is conflated with atheism. They won't accept God, the supernatural or the Bible. It's secular science, but I call it atheist science.

You are the one doing the conflating. But just to be clear, the real issue here is not the existence of God or the supernatural, it's the Bible.

 

[jamesbond007]

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, besides Horace Lamb, furthered the decay of the magnetic field in order to show a young earth. He concluded the magnetic field was less than 10K years old.

The argument went as follows, "He noted that between 1835 and 1965 geophysicists had made some 26 measurements of the magnetic dipole moment of the earth’s magnetic field. When plotted against time (that is, the year of measurement) these data points fitted a decay curve which Barnes calculated had a ‘halflife’ (halving period) of only 1,400 years. On this basis he concluded that the earth’s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years old, and so the earth must likewise be that young (see Figure 1)."

Since God created earth and it's magnetic field and it has been decaying exponentially, the earth has to be young or else the field would've been gone.

That's the basic argument which I partially agree with. The earth is young, but I'm not sure if the magnetic field will be gone relatively soon. Some have pegged it around year 3000 while Barnes seems to estimate 20 K years.

Since then, the magnetic field has been explained by secular science with its dynamo theory.

Which is correct? This was the point of this thread.

This may be a good point to bring in the old earth, so that's why I asked sfs to explain or anybody else how the old earth came about.