Magnetic Field of the Earth

[TheBear]

Dr. Russell Humphryes has composed a chart of the earth's magnetic field history, since the creation.



Source: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm

Also, at the bottom of the page there is a disclaimer -

"* Dr. Humphreys is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico. The Laboratories have not supported this work."

I have a few questions. What scientific methods did he use to derive this chart? And, why hasn't the Sandia National Laboratories supported his work?

If he is on the mark, or even close to a better explaination of the earth's magnetic field, the Sandia National Laboratories would stand to gain all kinds of monetary grants and funding, prestige and the like, if they supported his work. And if his findings are of major significance, the Nobel Prize is there for the taking.

So, what's up with all this?

 

[Ark Guy]

Because the concept of a creation, flood and Christ doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Because that chart has dubious origins. It has been accused of being a mirror image of someone elses data and the axes relabelled

This decaying magnetic field argument is ****.

It's a PRATT. There is so much debunking this on
www.talkorigins.org and elsewhere on the web.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

What they also don't mention is that the Earth's field was much weaker in the past. Then got stronger then weaker.

And perhaps the biggest problem - they are not measuring the whole field. Most of the field is undoubtedly toroidal and primarily confined at the liquid core/ mantle boundary. And what does get out is not just the measured dipole component which is what the YEC's quote. They neglect the quadrupole and higher field components which have been measured to increase this century.

As a physicist this is a YEC claim which gets me mad that they could be so dumb but keep on spouting bad science.

 

[TruthTraveler]

What they also don't mention is that the Earth's field was much weaker in the past. Then got stronger then weaker..

Really?

I was watching something on PBS and they used pots to tell how strong the magnetic field was.

And they said it is getting weaker at a rappid rate. I quess in 1 thousand years well see if it "reverses."
That is if the world doesn't end before that.................

A theory is not a Fact.

 

[TheBear]

Because the concept of a creation, flood and Christ doesn't fit their agenda.

Yeah. But you would think that all kinds of money and prestige would fit their agenda. I mean, if they saw the work as sound science, they would jump at the chance to support this work, regardless of the source. This would result in grants, funding, prestige, etc.

Maybe the real reason for not supporting his work, is that they do not see it as sound science, and have the integrity to denonce it, regardless of their potential loss of funding and prestige.

 

[daranka]

Our physics professor said that scientists has come in conclusion like this: Earth's magnetic field's poles will turn around in 1000 years (or smth like that).
If i remeber right

And that would then mean radiation from space would kill all life on Earth. Gotta search those notes i made. But the idea was something like that.

Cheers,

-A

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Our physics professor said that scientists has come in conclusion like this: Earth's magnetic field's poles will turn around in 1000 years (or smth like that).
If i remeber right

Hard to predict, but reversals do occur regularly.

And that would then mean radiation from space would kill all life on Earth. Gotta search those notes i made. But the idea was something like that.

Cheers,

-A

It hasn't had that effect the last umpteen times. He may be a bit off there.