Is the Earth’s magnetic field increasing or decreasing
If so, what difference does it make in the age of the Earth ?
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.
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 an historically proven 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)
Carbon 14 dating affected by the magnetic field of the Earth
"If the earth were old the magnetic field would have been too strong to allow life in the not too distant past. This magnetic field decay is not factored into Carbon 14 dating".
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.http://www.truescience.ca/magneticfield/
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 (Wile, 2007, p 336).
Thus, Carbon 14 dating, in many cases, 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.
No life could have existed if the earth was billions of years old with a huge magnetic field to start with (Wile, 2008).
Source: http://www.truescience.ca/magneticfield/
Both models predict Earth's magnetic field reversal
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 literature fail to inform us is that the “rapid-decay”, 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 literature also has failed to disclose how far off their “dynamo” theory predictions were when the Voyager’s satellite explored other planet’s magnetic fields. They came off by a factor of 100,000, while the “rapid-decay” theory that predicts the earth is young accurately predicted the Voyayer’s results. (Dr. Jay L. Wile. 2007).
Only the "Rapid-Decay" theory is consistent with measured data. The time-scale for the age of the earth due to the rapid-decay theory is only in the thousands of years. The dynamo theory tells us incorrectly 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.
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
