The Real Science Friday Mercury Report

[Jefferson]

The Real Science Friday Mercury Report

This is the show from Friday, November 9th, 2012.

SUMMARY:

* TONIGHT & THIS WEEKEND, RSF ANNOUNCES: Jonathan Sarfati In Colorado: You are invited to join Bob in attending the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship meeting to hear Dr. Sarfati, the world's most-popular creation scientist! Click for more info. (By the way, the book on the right is Jonathan's rebuttal of Richard Dawkins' latest evolution book.) Opportunities to see Dr. Sarfati:


- Tonight, 7 pm, Lakewood, Rocky Mtn Creation Fellowship, 2100 N. Wadsworth
- Sat. Nov. 10, 7 pm, Longmont, Faith Baptist Church, 833 15th Ave
- Sun Nov. 11, 9am & 10am, Longmont, Faith Baptist
- Sun. Nov. 11, 6pm, Littleton, 6100 S. Divinney Way

* The Planet Mercury Leaves NASA Jaw-Dropping Shocked: RSF co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have a ball talking about the amazing planet of Mercury and how, for such a small planet, it's causing such a load of trouble for the evolutionists! Thank you God for Mercury!


For today's show RSF recommends
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!



Today’s Resources: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxies! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out also Walt Brown’s In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip). And you can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins!

* BEL Telethon: We're at $22,000 of our $30,000 goal to help keep Bob Enyart Live and Real Science Friday on the radio for another year! Please click to help!

 

[gcthomas]

Poor predictions of Mercury's properties

Poor predictions of Mercury's properties

I think those stupid planetary scientists should be ashamed of their predictions that turned out to be a little way off.

They should judge themselves against the peerless predictions of Mercury's magnetic field and tectonic activity made by creationist scientists.

 

[Stripe]

I think those stupid planetary scientists should be ashamed of their predictions that turned out to be a little way off. They should judge themselves against the peerless predictions of Mercury's magnetic field and tectonic activity made by creationist scientists.

:chuckle:

Are you a :troll:?

 

[Stripe]

Part II on its way to me for Christmas!

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. Just noting that the planetary scientists had a guess about the properties of Mercury before anyone got any probes to within 100 million km and before they knew what the planet's structure was. That they discovered something mildly surprising when they went and had a proper look is not real evidence that the Big bang theory is bunk. (Why would BB proponents be involved in a planetary science probe anyway, as described in the piece? Completely different fields.)

[edit: hey, I'm not a one post wonder any more. I've been promoted to newbie! ]

 

[gcthomas]

"- Formation Barrier: While gravity can initially clump together dust and gas, small planetesimals (i.e, rocks) flying around in space tend to crash into each other and break apart rather than coalesce into larger bodies. Larger bodies significantly speed up as they approach each other, and either slingshot past one another or crash and break apart."

The bodies will heat up greatly in any collisions, and will usually melt. This heating disperses energy, making it more likely the bodies will stay close enough to coalesce later. Collisions of large objects don't cause fragmentation in the same way as small, low energy collisions.

 

[Stripe]

[edit: hey, I'm not a one post wonder any more. I've been promoted to newbie! ]

Great! So by now you should know how to use quote tags so we know what you're talking about.

 

[Nick M]

Just noting that the planetary scientists had a guess about the properties of Mercury before anyone got any probes to within 100 million km and before they knew what the planet's structure was.

And they based that guess on what?

 

[gcthomas]

And they based that guess on what?

Incomplete theories of planetary development, of course. Which are now a little more complete following the study of Mercury's magnetic field.

Stripe - ta for criticising my tag use. How about the points I raised?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe - ta for criticising my tag use. How about the points I raised?

Er .. well, that was the point of the criticism. I didn't get what point you were making. :idunno:

 

[Nick M]

Incomplete theories of planetary development, of course.

Why not base it on known observations instead?

 

[gcthomas]

Why not base it on known observations instead?

It was! This is how you learn about the universe: make observations. develop principles that appear to explain the observations. Use these principles to make tentative predictions. Make the observations necessary to verify predictions. If correct make more predictions and repeat previous steps. If incorrect, improve principles and repeat process.

The strength of the scientific method is that you continually stress test your theories, trying to find what is reliable and what needs improving. It is an iterative process, with failed predictions providing essential corrective nudges.

If you don't make any testable predictions based on your principles, how can you confirm their reliability or develop improved ones?