Is the Earth’s magnetic field increasing or decreasing
If so, what difference does it make in the age of the Earth ?
Image courtesy of Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
Two Theories
There are two existing theories that are trying to define the Earth’s current electrical field and its origins. One is the "Dynamo" theory, while the other is the "Rapid-Decay" theory.
The Dynamo theory for whatever reason is the most popular and most accepted theory by some “scientists” today. However, it does not predict the numbers accurately.
The Rapid-Decay theory, predicts the electrical field accurately, it is the most factual and proven theory of today.
The Rapid-Decay theory, predicts the electrical field accurately, it is the most factual and proven theory of today.
Why the difference?
The Dynamo theory states that the motion of fluid in the outer core of the earth is caused by differences in temperatures, which in turn causes the movement of electrical charges in the core and that in turns creates the electrical currents that we observe today in the earth’s magnetic field.
The Rapid-Decay theory states the earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electrical charges. The same theory states that the earth was actually created and the electrical fields are the results of such act. Thus the reluctance of most “scientists” to accept this theory, even though it has proven to be the most predictable thus far.
Which one is the most factual and scientific proven ?
The Rapid-Decay theory, states that the inner core of the earth is actually slowing down due to the infrastructure and the way the earth was created. The inner core of the earth’s movement is actually observed via indirect means and by examining seismic waves and careful measurements of the magnetic field that it produces.
How do we know the core is slowing down ? For the past 170 years scientists who have made careful examination of the electric currents in the earth, have observed the strength of the earth’s magnetic field is actually decreasing and getting weaker.
Image courtesy of: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) http://www.usgs.gov/ - http://geomag.usgs.gov/products/movies/index.php?type=declination&format=gif, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1733830
Predictability of the Rapid-Decay Theory
The Rapid-Decay theory is more direct in its prediction of the earth’s magnetic field, while the dynamo theory predicts a “fluctuating” magnetic field. Thus according to the dynamo theory, it so happens by “coincidence” that we are now living at the time that such fluctuation is taking place.
While both theories could be correct, one allows for field fluctuations, while the other (rapid-decay) rests on the fact that there was a global flood that reversed the magnetic fields. This would have meant a rapid reversal of the magnetic in a matter of a year or less due to the flood effects on the earth.
Surprisingly enough, it has been discovered that since 1989, scientists found evidence of field reversal over a short period of only 15 days. Thus, giving credence and validity to the rapid-decay theory instead.
Barnes stated in 1982,
Barnes stated in 1982,
"The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in the 1830's".
"The earth's magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. This provides a protective shield against cosmic rays and solar wind. The half-life of this decaying magnetic field is 1400 years (meaning that every 1400 years its strength is cut in half)". (Barnes, G. Thomas, D.Sc 1982)
Barnes, stated that the rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. If the decay continues at that rate, the magnetic field will "vanish in or around A.D. 3391, that is 1400 years from today (2017).
Other evidence that the Rapid-Decay theory is the most accurate and viable one is its ability to describe the magnetic field phenomena that takes place in our planetary system. Only the Rapid-Decay theory has accurately predicted that magnetic field of every planet in the solar system today (of the ones that have one).
Finally, as an icing on the cake, the Rapid-Decay theory accurately predicted the results of the Voyayer’s measurements while the dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000. (Dr. Jay L. Wile. 2007)
Since the magnetic field affects the amount of solar radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, the rate of Carbon 14 isotope production and consumption or half life in the atmosphere has varied over time.Carbon 14 dating affected by the magnetic field of the Earth
In order to calculate the age of any item based on the isotope Carbon 14 decay the initial amount of the C14 must be known.This is not possible due to lack of knowledge of how much magnetic field or the earth's electric current started with.
The only way we can determine for certainty the amount of Carbon 14 in an organism is if we measure the amount of Carbon 14 on tree rings. However, the dilemma is that we do not have C14 measurements for tree rings older than 3,000 years.
Also, it is impossible to know with certainty how much Carbon 14 was initially deposited in the organism that we are measuring. Every time we want to use any method of radioactive dating we must make assumption as to the amount of the radioactive substance present in such organism. This is quite hard to ascertain with accuracy. Thus, the reluctance of some scientists to accept those measured dates without questioning them.
As long as the results cover a span of about 3,000 years, Carbon 14 dating can be relied upon with little doubt. However, if radio carbon 14 dating turns out numbers greater than 3,000 years, it would be very difficult to ascertain those numbers as accurate. (Wile, 2007, pg 336)
Thus, Carbon 14 dating is not an absolute accurate dating method. Since the magnetic field of the early earth has changed, this is never factored into the equations.
As stated earlier, in the past 170 years scientists have made a careful examination of the electric currents in the earth. They have observed the strength of the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing and getting weaker.
The earth's magnetic decay has been growing steadily over the past thousand years which in turn has affected or sped up the amount of Carbon 14 decay or consumption in organisms (its half life), as well as all other forms of radio active isotope decay. This is why some objects date much older than they actually are.
Which model is more accurate ?
Both models, the “Dynamo” and the “Rapid-Decay” theory predict a periodic reversal of earth’s magnetic field. Thus, they are not telling anything new.
Some of the literature has failed to inform us is that the “Rapid-Decay”, and not the “Dynamo” theory predicted the magnetic field of the solar planets that surrounds us.
"The (Rapid-Decay) theory accurately predicted the previous field on Mars as confirmed by Mars Global Surveyor", also it predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune as confirmed by Voyager 2, and explains the present and former fields of moons and planets with slow rotation. http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/accurate-predictions-based-young-earth-creation-model
Some researchers also failed to disclose how far off the “Dynamo” theory predictions were when the Voyager’s satellite explored other planet’s magnetic fields.
Findings by the Voyager were off by a factor of 100,000 as regards the Dynamo theory, while the “Rapid-decay” theory accurately predicted the Voyayer’s results. (Dr. Jay L. Wile. 2007).
According to Barnes, some scientists can not do away with their billions of years of earth's existence.
"They must hold to a long age or it is the death knell for the whole theory of evolution. Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self-contradictions with those interpretations". (Barnes, G. Thomas, D.Sc 1982)
Only the "Rapid-Decay" theory is consistent with measured data. It is possible that the time-scale for the age of the earth, according to the Rapid-Decay theory is only in the thousands of years. On the other hand, the Dynamo theory tells us the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Only one theory has predicted with accuracy the magnetic field outcome. It was not the dynamo theory.
Only one theory has predicted with accuracy the magnetic field outcome. It was not the dynamo theory.
References:
- Dr. Jay L. Wile. 2007. Exploring Creation with Physical Science. 2nd Ed. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.
- “The Talk Origins Archive.” 2006. 2006. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html.
Footnotes:
Earth is slowing down by a fraction of a second.
"Part of the problem in correlating coral fossils to the rate of the presumed slowing of the Earth is that the rotation rate appears to change very slowly. Because an average increase in the length of the day is interpreted to be about 0.01 to 0.02 seconds per millennium, it isn't possible to specifically correlate the seasonal passage to such a tiny amount of rotational change (only 1 or 2 milliseconds per century)".
For example, at the tiny change of 0.01 to 0.02 seconds per millennium, it would require the passage of from 12 to 24 million years before even a single extra day per year would show up in the cited coral records.
This means that a great amount of time (many millions of years) would ultimately be required before a change of only a single day of difference could be counted (or ultimately even be noticed) amid the seasonal growth rings".
The Slowing Spin of Earth https://design-of-time.com/slowing.htm. Accessed Oct 19th, 2017
Copyright Computer Integrations, Inc. ©, 2017
No part of this article may be reproduced or copied without the author’s exclusive permission
