[Again, my own comments are in brackets. The first talk I went to was John Hartnett's "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics." I didn't get to use my computer during it because it was standing room only. It doesn't matter too much, because most of it was beyond my current understanding. Apparently he is coming out with a new book with Carmeli, but he didn't say the title. Basically, what he was saying was that Newtonian physics occurred in 3 dimension, Einstein added a 4th (time), and Carmeli added a 5th (velocity). His theory can account for the motion of galaxies and the expansion of the universe without dark matter or dark energy. However, apparently it has a little more trouble accounting for our own, or perhaps he simply had more trouble explaining how it accounted for our own. I'll try to read something about it at a later date.]
Russ started by congratulating those of us who went to Hartnett's theory and made it through his equations :)
Ridiculously simple idea: God used water to make magnetic fields in the cosmos
Explains magnetic fields of: stars, galaxies, and planets
Hydrogen nuclei have magnetic fields. They spin slower - make a field 1/1000 of an electron. But in water, the hydrogen nuclei point any which way, so normally water is not magnetic. But it can be magnetic if the nuclei line up.
God formed the earth from created water. 2 Peter 3:6 "The earth was formed out of water and by water". So what would happen if God, when he made the earth, if he used water and lined up the proton spins? (obviously this was followed by binding the water together into other elements).
If all H-nuclei are aligned it will have a large magnetic field.
The field would be 7.9 Gauss at the poles (MRI is about 10,000 Gauss - we are curently in 0.5 Gauss field).
Created magnetism depends on mass
Original Magnetic moment = Planet mass * 0.94 * (A-m^2)/kg
Approximation = Original Magnetic moment is approximately equal to the planet's mass in kilograms
Lines of force = magnetic flux (Faraday)
In ordinary water, molecules collide, disorient spins, and start electric current in the water within seconds. As each spin got out of alignment, it would induce current.
Current at creation = 130 Billion amperes. Flux would be conserved (he said the reason, I didn't understand it).
Transforming to solid earth conserves magnetic flux and keeps the same mass (so the current mass would be the same as the mass of the original water).
The current runs down. - Starts at 130 Billion Amperes and decays to 6 Billion Amperes. 2,000 year half-life. Perhaps other things happened during the flood as well.
Half Life =~ (conductivity) * (radius^2)
Created flux decayed fast in smaller planets. Also depends on material.
We can deduce from decay rates what the conductivities of the cores are.
Two main groups - gas giants (gas) and terrestrial planets (rocky and iron).
Gas giants have low conductivity and terrestrial planets have high conductivity. Matches what we know from material science.
Humphreys made several predictions in 1984 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, "The Creation of Planetary magnetic Fields." All of his 1984 predictions are NOW FULFILLED.
Other things that confirm theory but were not explicitly predicted in 1984:
Solar system data fits Humphrey's theory, but only with Biblical conditions (6,000 years and original water)!
Stars and Magnetic Fields
Galaxies and Magnetic Fields
How did God create galatic magnetic fields?
One scenario -
Universe may be God's biggest magnet
[This is an interesting, if EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE area, which I think was pioneered by the dude who did Creation's Tiny Mysteries (forgot the name). Anyway, I thought it was interesting, but it should be considered several orders of magnitude more speculative than the rest of the presentation.]
Magnetic fields show God's handiwork in the heavens.
Why can't we measure magnetic fields of planets but we can measure magnetic fields of stars? Answer - the magnetic fields of stars are large enough that they produce spectral effects.
Early equation - is there a theoretical basis for the number? Answer - it's in the book. Based on lining up protons.
On waters above - would it be directional or detectable? What would you look to find? Answer - I would expect some direction, and there's some intriguing astrophysical data that might point to that field, but we can't be sure. [mentioned some things about favored axes of radio wave spins and other things, but I wasn't paying enough attention - but ultimately the evidence is small]
Didn't hear question - magnetization of meteorites seems to imply that they were part of a larger body which was about earth-sized.
Plasma cosmology question - didn't know much of about plasma cosmology
Hartnett - Whole class of stars called "strange stars" - range from stars made of diamond (pure carbon) right up to quark stars, could probably be added to the graph of dots and it would probably line up.
Hartnett - something about rapidly spinning objects and event horizons
Hartnett - universe-sized magnetic moment - what about just treating galaxies as single-spin systems, and then add up total amount of galaxies - Audience comment - Harold Aston has done just this thing, but audience member did not know what the conclusion was.
We are not seeing galaxies at creation - we are seeing them after about 300 million years of winding (using their local clocks).