Tag: physics

Earth’s Magnetic Core; Limiting Factor

If you have never heard of the Dynamo Theory, another of secular science’s fudge factors, like dark matter, the inflaton, punctuated equilibrium, the Ort Cloud, and others…. then you may be interested in examining how it is that a measurably degrading magnetic core could have sustained life for hundreds of millions of years. Let me explain.

The earth’s magnetic core is getting weaker. This of course means that in the past it was stronger. By some measurements, it is determined that the magnetic core is 40% less strong than it was 1000 years ago. Measurements vary, and different areas degrade at different rates, but if today’s decay rate were projected backwards, the core would be implausibly strong in tens of thousands of years. Like catch the atmosphere on fire strong. All life on the planet gone strong. This means that for a Young Earth Creationist, we can once again make scientific observations that square with the truth of scripture quite easily. But of course the materialist, the evolutionist, those who demand deep time, and slow gradual random processes over billions of years, will have to appeal to some mechanism that forces the magnetic core to stay within a cosmically tight tolerance in order to not become deadly. Welcome to the Dynamo Theory.

As was ignored regarding Pluto, comets, and other celestial bodies, the obvious ignoring of thermodynamic laws must be applied here, as scientists propose the magnetic core conveniently goes through stages of magnetic powering up, not too powered up though, and at the specific times it is needed. The basic idea is:

Heat escapes from Earth’s core.
Molten iron circulates.
Because iron conducts electricity and the Earth rotates, electrical currents are produced, and those currents regenerate the magnetic field.

In their model, the field is not a battery slowly running down but a self-sustaining system that can strengthen, weaken, and even reverse. This same mechanism is applied out of necessity to Jupiter and Mercury as well. Computer simulations are adjusted to make the tolerances work for life, and the plausibility is accepted across academia since it must be so!

The greater difficulty, even if the recharging of a magnetic core is possible, is the heavier burden of this process allegedly operating for 3.8 billion years while remaining compatible with life the entire time without a single mistake! Through this constant supposed ebbing and flowing through time, the core by natural unguided means, must avoid prolonged states of weakness which would allow solar wind and radiation to destroy the atmosphere. And though we have never observed it getting stronger (other than normal flux), we must assume that it always obeyed upper limits of magnetic strength that would have set the world on fire, again, by luck, random chance, and randomly sitting in the perfect pocket for millions of years.

Remember, it has changed by 40% in 1000 years. How many years based on 40% being lost in 1000 years, could we safely go back in time before the magnetism got too strong for life? There is a record of pole reversals that align with the flood, and catastrophic results of that event, but under normal consistent observation, the core is behaving exactly as we would expect, and slowly losing power.

If we use the stated premise literally — 40% loss per 1,000 years — then running the field backward means multiplying its strength by: 0.61​=1.667

every 1,000 years.

So the backward-growth formula is: B(t)=B0​(1.667)t/1000

One key problem is that there is no universally agreed single magnetic-field strength at which “all life dies,” so I cannot give you one scientifically established cutoff year. But we can calculate how quickly the field becomes dramatically stronger than today’s:

Years backApprox. field strength vs. today
1,3572×
3,1515×
4,50810×
5,86520×
7,65850×
9,015100×
13,5231,000×
18,03010,000×
27,0461,000,000×

If you choose even a very generous hypothetical tolerance of 100 times today’s field, you’ve only gotten about 9,000 years into the past. At 1,000 times, you’re only at about 13,500 years.

So with even a conservative instinct of something like 15,000–25,000 years as the region where straight backward extrapolation becomes physically absurd, by then you’re dealing with fields thousands to hundreds of thousands of times stronger than today. So the clean conclusion is: At a 40%-per-millennium decay rate, a simple backward extrapolation becomes extraordinarily problematic within roughly ten to twenty thousand years—not millions or billions.

But I want to keep one guardrail firmly in place: this calculation only attacks a monotonic-decay model. The standard geodynamo response is precisely that the field does not follow this exponential trend backward indefinitely.

But where the broader argument becomes interesting is different: if the dynamo is invoked to prevent those absurd historical strengths, then the burden shifts to showing that its long-term fluctuations stayed within whatever the genuinely habitable limits are; i.e. a habitable zone defined by an ebb or flow period of only 10,000 years long.

So a scientific question might be:

Across 3.8 billion years of modeled fluctuations, what is the probability that the field never leaves that safe range long enough to sterilize the planet or permanently derail complex life?

And that, as we discussed, is the probability question for which we currently do not have a well-established numerical answer.

This “Chaotic Cycle” does not mean that every conceivable field strength is equally likely. A hurricane is chaotic, but it does not randomly become hotter than the Sun. The governing equations and available energy constrain its possible states. But it is not unreasonable to imagine that when dealing with small tolerances for life, and powerful cosmic forces, magnetic force with no intelligent control could easily surpass safe levels in either direction.

Using a hypothetical 10,000-year tolerance window: 10,000/3,800,000,000​=380,000​

So that’s 380,000 consecutive 10,000-year windows across 3.8 billion years of life leading to humans (from goo to the zoo to you; i.e. what they teach your kids in school).

Each 10,000 year interval becomes 0.000263% of proposed life history.

One important mathematical distinction: that does not itself mean “380,000 perfect dynamo cycles,” because we haven’t established that the dynamo cycles every 10,000 years. What we are calculating is 380,000 hypothetical tolerance intervals.

But the probability question becomes sharper: if a lethal magnetic excursion had some probability (p) during any 10,000-year interval, what is the probability Earth survives all 380,000 intervals without a single terminal excursion?

Under the simplified assumption that each interval were independent: P(survival)=(1−p)380,000

That gets brutal remarkably quickly. Even a lethal-event probability of only 1 in 100,000 per interval gives: (0.99999)380,000≈2.24%

So under that illustrative model, even a 99.999% safe 10,000-year interval yields only about a 2.2% chance of making it through all 3.8 billion years.

For Earth to retain even a 50/50 chance of surviving all 3.8 billion years under this simplified model, the probability of a sterilizing magnetic failure during any individual 10,000-year interval could be no greater than approximately 0.0001824%—about one chance in 548,000 per interval. And it would have to maintain that extraordinary reliability through all 380,000 hypothetical tolerance windows.

380,000 tolerance windows, with effectively no room for a single sterilizing failure.

The wider the modeled variation compared with the habitable window, the less plausible the model becomes. And if the system is genuinely chaotic, one cannot simply point to its present survivability and call the problem solved. That risks reasoning backward from the desired outcome: life exists, therefore every prior excursion must somehow have been survivable.

A proposed mechanism is not yet a demonstrated history. Saying “the dynamo regenerates the field” does not answer:

how strong or weak it can become,
how long dangerous excursions can last,
what the biological and atmospheric limits are,
or why those limits were allegedly never exceeded catastrophically over immense time.

I would still distinguish “this looks profoundly implausible” from “mathematically disproven,” because the latter requires numbers we do not possess. But common sense is not worthless simply because a complete probability distribution is unavailable. Common sense often identifies where a theory carries an enormous hidden burden.

Moreover, Earth’s habitability depends on a coupled systems: magnetic field, atmosphere, solar behavior, gravity, mantle evolution, plate tectonics and lunar influences, etc. This is one large habitation problem in a series of large habitation problems. But specific to our necessary and amazing magnetic core, we either must attribute perfectly self-sustaining mechanisms applied over billions of years without a single mistake to natural cosmic processes, or admit that our fragile window of existence is held firm by the author of life.

The stability and order of creation ultimately must rest upon God rather than autonomous natural processes:

Psalm 75:3 (ESV) “When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars.”

1 Samuel 2:8 (ESV): “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”

Psalm 104:5 (ESV): “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.”

And Colossians 1:16–17 takes the concept beyond the Earth to the entire created order: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

And Hebrews 1:3 says of Christ: “He upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

Should Creationists Be scared of Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics is an innovative physics field, the math of which is certainly beyond my expertise, and that has merit as a study of how sub-atomic particles behave and interact. But despite physicists’ insistence, specifically those dedicated to evolutionary processes, it concerns operational sciences rather than origins. And what we run into is the lesson told many years ago by Socrates, that the smartest of us often think themselves wisest because of expertise in one subject they deem most important. This is born out in the poor philosophical conclusions of Hawking, and others, in my opinion, and since they were wise in one area, and share a world-view with main stream scientists, their perceived intelligence and respected reputations prevented critical examination of their philosophical conclusions.

So much so that Hawking gets a pass when he says “because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing.” When he makes the truth claim that “free will is an illusion” without realizing he is admitting we have no reason to trust his own truth claims, including that one!

Or how no one bats an eye when Biologist, Richard Dawkins has to remind us to ignore the appearance of design during his never-ending campaign against a designer: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Without evidence of any kind, Dawkins appeals to faith-based occurrences beyond nature while in the same book, (God Delusion) smugly attacking Christians for doing the same: “There are probably ‘superhuman’ alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe.” “There may well be a plethora of universes.”

He is not rebuked for obvious circular reasoning: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us.” Brilliant. (insert eye-roll emoji.)

According to Socrates (and Plato) it is okay to be ignorant, because you can remedy it by learning. What is a dangerous enemy of knowledge is being caught in the illusion of knowledge while in fact being ignorant, because of pride.

In the age of google warriors, and misinformation, it is often those who are smart at one subject who have the strongest opinions about many others, especially that which they don’t know much about. (The fact that atheists and scientists would levy this same charge at me is not lost on me. I am a student of many things, but do certainly attempt to hang my world-view on an authority higher than my own whenever possible. That being said, I would stipulate that I am not immune to that criticism either).

Since Max Planck’s Nobel prize in 1919, Quantum Mechanics has been a tangent from classical physics (Newton) and was furthered by guys like Heisenberg, Einstein, and Bohr. The math supports the theories, and it solved problems that classical physics could not.

But here is where the practicality and the problems lie. When you examine the functions, the math shows that wave functions exist as a superposition of all possible states. In this way, we can describe the characteristics of a particle. This makes all positions true simultaneously, and each position inevitable. Extrapolated to the absurd, this acceptance that all possibilities are true is one of the reasons for atheist/evolutionary appeals to a multi-verse, yet another unprovable fudge factor needed to explain the Big Bang Model in naturalistic terms, due to how impossibly finely tuned our universe is. (Stephen Hawking tinkered with this idea late in his life).

It is already well documented in many works the dedication modern scientists have to materialism, evolution, and the anathema of Intelligent Design within the halls of academia; accept anything to prevent a “divine foot in the door”, even that which is absurd, by their own admission. This leads of course to faith in the impossible, the unprovable, the unobservable, and faith in these things, they persist, is supported by QM, because all possibilities exist at once.

In this New Age, or post-modern age, this leads to a morally relativistic view of QM, that reality should be taken as subjective, or based on the observer. Both Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism known as “the observer collapses the wave function,” and even the Schrödinger’s Cat experiment, a now famous pop-culture reference from the Big Bang Theory show, was actually a purposeful reduction to the absurd, as Schrödinger relied more on the law of non-contradiction, rather than relativism.

The basic, true laws of nature and logic, like causality, identity, non-contradiction, were not abandoned by the fathers of QM theorists, but has been popularized today as more and more appeals to a Godless universe meet headlong with direct observable facts that keep proving the Big Bang theory is poor science. Hence the need for faith based beliefs and fudge factors, such as dark matter, dark energy, the Inflaton, the multiverse, etc. You will notice, all of these fudge factors, the physicist and cosmologist must have “faith” in to keep hoping that the universe is Godless. But they do not attribute it to faith, as they lean on the crutch of relativity that QM provides for them. Since it is their specialized, elite field they hold in high esteem above the average plebian’s paltry understanding, they fall into the trap of valuing their elegant math-based conclusions over obvious empirical observations we see and understand every day. They surmise in their own minds every possibility is inevitable without God, as long as they don’t have to observe those conclusions today in real time. This appeal to deep time, or enough time, is the magic elixir poured into each opinion to add credence, and is done so with impunity, since this pillar of evolution is automatically ensconced in the public’s mind as “fact.” In this manner, they can criticize the Christian as ignorant, stupid, or insane (Richard Dawkins) while employing the same tactics themselves, faith being the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

When we speak in laymen’s terms, it boils down to very smart scientists and mathematicians being so hyper focused on the minutia of QM, that they miss the forest for the trees. This is of course coupled with utter dedication to the presupposition that inorganic evolution is true, as it must be if we are to believe that directionless, purposeless, unthinking inorganic material somehow create intelligent order. We are once again faced with this persistent axiom, Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Again, this is simply because all possibilities exist simultaneously, including one where there is perfect order.

Doctor of Physical Chemistry, Jonathan Sarfati, a respecter of Newton, science, and a creationist, states it this way: “It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory.”

Bottom line, QM works, has strong support, and is not a threat to creationism. In fact, some studies highlight its usefulness in nature, (sense of smell, photosynthesis, bird navigation). But with presuppositions on both sides, what we see is the confusing of QM with interpretations of QM. Luckily we have observable reality to rely on, and in that reality, we know how nature reacts unmanipulated by intelligence, and no amount of insistence that explosions create perfect order naturally will change that.

Dark Matter; Why Does It Matter?

Disclaimer: I am not a cosmologist.

But here is what I do know. The model used to get from the Big Bang explosion from nothing to today’s observable universe, via naturalist or materialist means simply does not work without Dark Matter. (well, it doesn’t work for a myriad of other reasons too, but even assuming the rest fit, the naturalist needs Dark Matter).

Definitions are important, and sometimes I take for granted that everyone knows what I mean when I say things. So let’s take a second and define what I mean when I say a few terms:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.

When I say naturalist, or materialist, it is simply a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Things only developed through natural means, without a designer. Essentially this is the normative atheistic point of view.

And Dark Matter? What is it? Well, the definition provided is “a nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang.”

These “particles” mind you, are not detectable by any means we now possess. Not visible or observable on any known spectrum. Can’t see it. Can’t feel it. Can’t hear it.

Then how, you might ask, do we know it is there? The answer is, it has to be, because if it wasn’t, the Big Bang model falls apart. In other words, those who operate under the presupposition that the universe propagated itself via natural means know that Dark Matter exists, because it has to exist for the presupposition to be true. This is the atheist’s own version of the “god of the gaps” argument. There is a major scientific gap in how stars can form and how galaxies have been able to maintain their shape (the wind-up problem) and in order to add the correct amount of gravity necessary to make the computer simulations work, they have invented, made up, concocted, pretended, that Dark Matter exists so that the observable universe is more mathematically feasible.

You see, without Dark Matter, the first stars could not have formed in the vacuum of space. If Hydrogen and Helium were floating around in a vacuum, physics tells us the particles would expand. Certainly if they were somehow inclined to coalesce into something more dense, and the temperature would rise, making them expand more, curbing any tendency inorganic, purposeless particles might have to form into a star. A star that must get so dense that it weighs 4,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lbs, the weight of our own sun. Out of Helium. And hydrogen. In space.

The solution, enter Dark Matter. A plugged in and specified amount of un-detectable, un-observable gravity, that is there, simply because it must be, that would push these air particles together hard enough, and long enough to force them into creating the first stars.

I’d like to point out here that this is the self-same scientific community that prides itself on being the paragons of logic, who have market cornered on beliefs that are securely moored to facts, and who are quick to point fingers at believers in God as anti-science. The Berkeley science website even states, “Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable.” – (understanding science, 2014).

And what is supernatural? It is defined as a force beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature. A force beyond observable nature.

A good example of such a supernatural force would of course be Dark matter.

Why am I so adamant, and even occasionally snarky about this subject? Because I feel the ridiculousness of these theories are obvious. The fudge factors are well known within the scientific community, and yet these obvious pleas for legitimacy are never presented to students. Only big words, and the repeating drums of the big bang being fact, along with great animation, and spectacular fairy tales propped up by eons of time. When spoken of in common language, explained in laymen’s terms, and splashed with the cold water of reality, with the physical laws of the universe, scientists are knowingly making up different types of matter, that no one can see, with the exact properties they need them to have, so that they do not have to be wrong. Dark Matter is one of several.

When I explain the reality of Dark Matter theory to my nine year old, she has the common sense to laugh at those silly scientists. Of course the atheist who sees Christians raise their kids with the notion that stars are a special creation, just like humans are, accuses the Christian of child abuse, negligence, and bad parenting.

But the materialists make up fudge factors with impunity, and without compunction. They call it good science, because it supports their idea of a Godless universe, and they manipulate data and simulations to tell the story they want to believe in. This has not been a search for truth. This has instead been a scramble to defend a dying cosmological model. Dark Matter,  and it’s perfect and uncanny gravity, is just another example of this dishonest practice.

My question is, how many made up components of the Big Bang model must their be, before the materialists admit that they too are faith based, and that their faith is in that which is beyond nature, beyond the ability to observe, and in that which contradicts the laws of physics? The difference between concluding that there is a God and concluding that there is Dark Matter, is that the heavens declare the glory of God, it is obvious to any nine year old who looks up to the heavens in awe. Dark matter is declared by no one but the scientists who invented it, and use it in hopes that it will keep the truth of God at bay for a little while longer.

UPDATE: In addition to this article, I will add here an excerpt from the article, “Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way”, sciencedaily.com, February 2015.

““The existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well established. But historically it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions, where the Solar System is located. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision from our own position in the Milky Way.
“In our new study, we obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of the Milky Way. We have created the most complete compilation so far of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way, and compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the Galactic centre,” says Miguel Pato at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.” (emphasis added).

This statement, “The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us”, is the obvious and continual bias coming from the scientific community. The effect of the presupposition of deep time is pervasive, and endlessly sabotages attempts at good science. It is the reason they must cling blindly to faith in made up fudge factors.

Also, this author claims “direct observational proof!” Of a substance they cannot detect! How did they directly observe it? They measured the rotation speed of heavenly bodies while assuming only detectable matter exists! In other words, they simply observed the natural universe. And since the conclusion makes deep time impossible, they know dark matter is proved! Are you kidding me?!

Here, from their own lips, you have faith in a made up element, rather than ever consider that their underlying assumptions about the universe are dead wrong.

 

 

 

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I posted this pic on my Facebook author page, https://www.facebook.com/cooper.author/;

31913695_588273344874387_7039792427137236992_nand as you can plainly see, one of the assertions in this meme is that the theory of evolution violates the law of entropy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Disregarding for a moment all the other assertions, I had a friend who has an interest in the creation vs evolution debate single out this law, and ask me how specifically the law is violated by the evolutionary theory. Evolutionists claim that the theory does not violate any known laws of physics, including the second law.

What is the second law? Thermodynamics refers to the relationship between energy, heat, and matter. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of a system to degenerate into a more disordered state, or experience entropy (disorder). This means on a long enough timeline, these systems will experience a heat death, or an energy death, where potential energy will cease to be available. People like to say, ‘everything tends towards chaos.’

Now, the main caveat that evolutionists will include is that this applies only to isolated systems, and not to open systems, or systems that exchange matter and energy with the systems around it. They will say that the universe, the Earth, these are open systems, and therefore materials and energy can be added to them, which of course, is correct. The sun, for example, adds energy to the Earth constantly. So does it all depend on whether the system is open or not?

First, lets define the three systems; isolated, closed, and open.

An isolated system shares zero matter and energy with the systems around it. Without intelligent interference, these systems will wind down.

Then there are closed, which only share energy, not matter, and open, which share both energy and matter with its surrounding systems, such as Earth, receiving materials from space (debris, meteors, maybe comets, etc), as well as energy and heat.

But, the interesting thing is, the 2nd law applies to these open systems as well, despite the evolutionist’s claim to the contrary. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Open systems still move towards disorder. There are some instances, in an open system, where order is increased, at the expense of a net loss of order in the surrounding systems, such as in crystals. But it is important to note, as Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. points out, there is a huge difference between order, and complexity. A crystal is not increasing information, just aligning and repeating. If one breaks open a crystal, the same repeated alignment is still present, but in smaller chunks. Whereas, if one breaks a cell, or a frog, one destroys the complexity, and thereby destroys the system completely.

Plus, and this is key, you cannot pump raw energy into a system and expect order and increased complexity. It destroys. Stand in the desert sun for awhile and see if your body can utilize the energy of the sun. One anti-creationist states that ice cubes prove adding energy can create order. However, that is through an intelligently designed device, a freezer. Adding raw energy would heat water, and increase disorder, creating steam and air. Plants have a built in mechanism, and language (DNA), and components that enable it to harness the sunlight. We have the intelligence to harness it with devices such as solar panels. We can utilize our designed intelligence to create things from food, to structures, and thereby can create order with intelligence, which is the only way order can be actually created.

This is why entropy rails so hard against the theory of evolution. It is only with an intelligent designer that order has appeared, and through observing how nature utilizes energy to create function and order, whether an open closed system or not, we see once again that “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20.

It took intelligence to make the universe, and life, a sensible deduction because as we observe every time, it takes a directed harness and intelligence to use it. So again, we see that observable, repeatable, demonstrable science supports a designer, rather than random chance.

All sides of the debate agree that the universe as a whole is winding down, that it had a beginning, and will one day, on a long enough timeline, experience a heat death. We see entropy in everything from the non-beneficial mutations of the human genome, to the aging of our bodies, to lunar regression, to even the sun itself having a finite amount of fuel to burn. Evolutionists must continually rail against good science to prop up their theory so as to “not let a divine foot in the door,” by inventing ways the universe could have randomly ordered itself, sustained itself, and perpetuated itself. Stars must explode to make more stars, proteins must increase in complexity to become life, the magnetic field of Earth must self-sustain for billions of years (even though we observe it losing magnetism [called the dynamo theory – insert eye-roll here]), and proponents of the theory must assert loudly that their side is the only one that practices good science.

Without intelligence to harness and utilize available energy, regardless of the type of system, we see the universal 2nd law of thermodynamics is very much on the side of creation. The fall back for evolutionists is of course to invoke great amounts of time to solve the problem; the “anything possibly can happen if given enough time” faith. But time only increases entropy. Ask yourself if it is good science to believe that if a cat walks on a keyboard long enough, he will write a book. Now realize that in the simplest  organism, there are 1000 pages worth of specific genetic coding. Knowing the 2nd law is true, how do you arrive there without intelligence?