The planet Mars has no magnetic field, though it rotates almost as fast as does the earth and is slightly larger than Mercury, both of which have magnetic fields. But Mars once did have a magnetic field, as did the moon.
Mars has a tenth of the mass of the earth and slightly more than half of earth's radius. Its solar day lasts about 2.7 percent longer, which means that it rotates more slowly, but not by much. Moreover, Mars is further away from the sun, and that suggests, according to conventional theory, that Mars should have been able to preserve its magnetic field for longer than did Venus.
Yet the magnetic dipole moment of Mars (as of 1984) was no larger than 2.1 quintillion N-m/T.
That is even less than the maximum magnetic dipole moment of Venus at that time (10 quintillion N-m/T).
Moreover, several surveys of Mars, by the Mars Global Surveyor and other vehicles, indicate that certain impact craters, conventionally regarded as the "oldest," contain significant remanent magnetism. In fact, the remanence is described as having a magnitude comparable to a remanent magnetic anomaly in Norway, described as able to cancel out half the magnetic field of the earth. Other impact craters, thought to be "younger," do not display this remanent magnetism.
Planetary scientist familiar with the problem all agree that Mars had a much stronger magnetic field than it has today. What they don't agree on is why it no longer has a magnetic field.
Conventional theory states that planets must have internal dynamos in order to have magnetic fields. These dynamos depend on rapid rotation and high (and rather sharp) temperature gradients between mantle and core. Anything that would heat the mantle to a temperature comparable to that of the core would shut down the dynamo and with it the magnetic field. This supposition has led some to speculate that an asteroid or asteroids of much larger size than usual struck Mars, produced the required heating, and shut down the magnetic field. Others suggested that the dynamo shut down by itself when the convection currents in the core stopped running.
All of these investigators would be surprised to learn that D. Russell Humphreys predicted, in 1984, the very remanent magnetism that later space missions began to find, from 13 to 20 years later. His theory is that all planetary bodies began with a magnetic field proportional in strength to their masses. These fields, including that of Mars, have then been subject to free decay ever since, at a rate dependent on the size and conductivity of their respective bodies' cores.
Humphreys calculated that Mars once had a magnetic dipole moment of 151 sextillion N-m/T, and that the field has been decaying exponentially. Assuming a year of creation of 4004 BC. and taking the magnetic dipole moments at creation and in 1984, results in a decay time of 535.77 years. This is consistent with a core nearly as conductive as the earth's core, but much smaller. Furthermore, any remanent magnetism would suggest the age of the rock—and the magnetic field strength would be predictable from the time-since-creation of any hypothetical event.
The Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood, as previously mentioned, predicts that the breakout of a subcrustal ocean on earth ejected large masses of water and rock into space. That event took place in 2348 BC or 1656 Anno Mundi. Given the calculated decay time, the magnetic dipole moment on Mars in the Flood year should have been 6.86 sextillion—and from the radius of Mars (3,389.5 km), the magnetic flux density at the surface would be 0.176 Gauss.
The magnetic flux density on earth today is about 0.308 Gauss—less than twice the predicted figure for the flux density on Mars in the year of the Flood. Which is what has been reported.
Because Humphreys predicted the finding of strong remanent magnetism on Mars, these latest finds have vindicated him yet again. More than that, they establish that the same tremendous bombardment that permanently scarred the moon, locked it tidally to earth, and shortened the synodic month, also affected Mars. This bombardment surely affected other planetary and lunar bodies. Future lander, rover, and/or sample-return missions to these other bodies should yield similar finds of remanent magnetism.
The video above is mostly Darwinist Fairy Tales. Humphreys predicted what we do find without a long and involved and strange story Darwinists must concoct without much in the way of evidence at all. One thing they get right is that the magnetic field allows us to live and that it is fading rapidly.
Prediction 1 - Strength of the Planets’ Magnetic FieldsThere is evidence that every planet and large moon in our solar system, including earth, has—or once had—a magnetic field surrounding it. And since the earth’s creation, its field has been steadily decaying (losing strength), for which Horace Lamb created a model over 100 years ago. More recently (1984), creationist physicist D. Russell Humphreys developed a theory to explain the strength of the magnetic fields of the earth and the other planets.
Test Result: Voyager 2’s MeasurementsIf the earth were even 20,000 years old, its magnetic field would have been so strong as to make life impossible, based on the present rate of decay. The theories of Humphreys and Lamb can be used to determine how much the magnetic field of an astronomical object should decay after 6,000 years at the present decay rate. The numbers that resulted from Humphreys’s theory not only matched the strengths of the known magnetic fields at the time but also successfully anticipated Voyager 2’s measurements of the magnetic field of Uranus (in 1986) and Neptune (in 1990). These results not only confirmed a creationist theory but also helped confirm that the solar system really is as young as the Bible claims.
Read: The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and Neptune: Monument to Creation
Prediction 2 - Decay and Helium Release (RATE)When radioactive elements, such as uranium, decay, particles are released. These particles include helium atoms, which are “slippery” and make their way out of the crystals where they are formed. If uranium has been decaying at the present slow rate over millions and billions of years, most of the helium should have slipped out of rock crystals. If, in contrast, the earth is young and radioactive decay was much more rapid in the past, then we would expect to find lots of helium in the earth’s rocks.
Test Result: New Mexico Drill SiteWhen rock was tested from a drill site in Fenton Hill, New Mexico, large amounts of helium in crystals were found. This suggests not only that those crystals are only thousands of years old, but also that lots of radioisotope decay (which would require more than a billions of years at today’s rates) had to occur in only thousands of years. This in turn suggests that nothing on the earth can be dated any older than the Bible indicates.
Watch: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Prediction 3 - Radiohalos in SandstonesRadiohalos are the evidence of damage caused when radioactive elements within rocks break down. The breakdown of uranium also creates the fast-decaying radioactive element polonium. Geologist Andrew Snelling suggested that if water flowed rapidly through a rock at the time uranium was rapidly decaying, polonium could be concentrated in a separate place from the uranium. If Snelling’s theory were correct, geologists would expect to find more polonium halos wherever additional water was passing through the rock.
Test Result: Smoky MountainsWhen Snelling examined metamorphosed sandstones in the Smoky Mountains, he found exactly what he had predicted. Not only do these polonium halos confirm this creationist theory, but they also suggest that many processes were more rapid in the past. Radioactive decay, metamorphism, and cooling of rocks must have been more rapid in the past to fit into a biblical understanding of earth history.
See the research: Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
Prediction 4 - Cold Material near the Earth’s CoreIn the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid motion of the earth’s crust during the Flood. His theory suggested that the “cold” crust, located beneath the pre-Flood oceans, should have sunk the full 1,800 miles (2900 km) to the base of the earth’s hot mantle, where the temperatures are up to 7,232°F (4000°C). This crust would have melted if it had millions of years to reach the base of the mantle, sinking as slowly as today’s rates. On the other hand, if it sank quickly 4,350 years ago, as Baumgardner’s theory suggested, then piles of those plates should still be found at the base of the mantle, cooler than the mantle around them.
Test Result: Mantle DiscoveryIt took ten more years before scientists developed the technology capable of “seeing” something like that at the base of the mantle. When that technology was developed, the cold material was discovered, just as Baumgardner’s model had expected. This successful prediction suggests that Baumgardner’s model is true. It also suggests that continents moved rapidly during the Flood and that the Flood occurred only thousands of years ago, just as the Bible suggests.
Discover: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
Prediction 5 - Reversal of Earth’s Magnetic FieldAll magnetic fields have two distinct poles, a north and a south, and so it is with the earth’s. At various times in the past, however, the earth’s magnetic field has actually switched directions. In each case, the North Pole switched with the South Pole. Since volcanic lava, as it cools, records the direction of the magnetic field at the time of the cooling, the rocks of the earth have recorded these flips of the magnetic field. In 1986, however, D. Russell Humphreys suggested that the turmoil of the Flood caused the magnetic field of the earth to flip rapidly during the Flood. If so, the field must have flipped every couple of weeks or so.
Test Result: Steens Mountain RecordIn 1988, a basalt flow was found at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon that did indeed record a flip in the earth’s magnetic field. So far, the only way to explain such a rapid reversal is by the disruption of the young earth’s magnetic field during a global Flood—just as the Bible claims.
Find out more: Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field
Resources from Our Online Store
- Thousands . . . Not Billions Pack
- The Ultimate Proof of Creation
- Pocket Guide Sample Pack
- Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True
- Something from Nothing