Should There Be Higher Expectations With Space Exploration?

While some evolutionary scientists are working on inventing various scenarios on how they view nature evolving which is impossible to confirm considering not one of these scientists were able to observe the past in which they are studying. For example, birds have been researched over many years to answer a basic question, why do they exist in the evolutionary framework?

From an evolutionist standpoint, a new theory on the origin of birds has been created to answer the basic question. Although it’s not the correct usage of the term ‘theory’ but rather an “hypothesis” so what is their reasoning? According to the new ‘theory’ in Physorg, “Scientist cites enlarged skeletal muscles as reason birds exist.” In other words, this scientist is suggesting that birds have strong muscles; therefore, these amazing creatures must have evolved.  Circular reasoning! Waste of public money!

Now what about these ‘theories’ explaining things like our solar system? Have you ever had a career where management was consistently wrong but yet still considered experts? If management is consistently wrong, nothing could be built or produced. This is not to say there might be efficiency issues which is another subject, but accomplishing products or services to remain in business.

When it comes to exploring space, planetary scientists have a track record of consistently getting it wrong with their various ‘theories’. Unlike Darwinian evolution where one cannot explore the past to verify their speculations, it all depends how popular their explanation is among other scientists, but planetary scientists have been able to do some direct observing that has tested their ‘theories’ which have failed in more ways than one. This is not to say things like their orbital mechanics are a failure, but on the contrary, it’s been quite amazing to say the least. This part of science is not in question, because this particular part of it does in fact enhance knowledge!

Missions have revealed quite often a completely different reality than from what scientists have told the public they expected to discover from their beliefs in planetary evolution. While keeping the basic ‘theories’ intact which was the problem in the first place for the falsifications, they instead created major revisions with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, comets, asteroids, and most of the moons of the solar system! This is why direct observation is so important and vastly superior over speculation.

Here are a few examples…

Saturn’s geysering moon Enceladus which data has been confirming creationism is now known for its amazing performances.  The Cassini spacecraft recently made another pass through the geysers at close range and sampled some of the particles. More data of sodium and potassium was discovered which was then used to hype up the mission by speculation about life. However, there is something that was not hyped up to the public with new data coming from Cassini. The challenge of old age assumptions with Enceladus has become a major obstacle in fitting in the data.

Nicholas Altobelli quoted in science daily says, “Enceladus is a tiny icy moon located in a region of the outer Solar System where no liquid water was expected to exist, because of its large distance from the Sun.”   Not only that, but another challenge to the idea of tides having an impact on creating the heat on the moon for billions of years which one expert in here referred to a long time ago. A new study was published in Icarus which was conducted by Chin and Nimmo who calculated that the obliquity tides do not significantly heat Enceladus. Any heating would be around a thousand times too small as a heat source for the moon’s powerful geysers.

Not long ago, scientists were telling the public at large that comets nothing more than dirty snowballs from the pristine outer reaches of the solar system nudged in toward the sun by passing stars. But direct observations have proven otherwise! Missions that included Halley, Borrely, and Tempel, have shown there are minerals that require high temperatures for their formation, calling for radical revisions of ‘theories’.  Now enter Comet Hartley 2, visited last November on Deep Impact’s extended mission, nicknamed EPOXI.  Natalie Wolchover’s headline on Live Science says it all: “Quirky Comet Hartley” which confounds every popular evolutionary idea.

The question is, should the public hold to higher expectations with these so-called experts with space exploration? After all they are spending billions of dollars for this research and look at the results they are getting. This is not to say scientific discovery is bad in fact it’s good because it brings reality back over speculation. The money was well worth spent on the fabulous jobs the techs have been doing for bringing to earth, in our lifetimes, a highly impressive treasure of new data about the solar system.  This includes those who have worked hard for years to save the delicate particles from the Genesis mission! And look at the Cassini mission, its original intent is long since complete and yet it’s still going strong with collecting amazing data!

New Papers Continues To Show Titan’s Youthfulness

The assumption of old age concerning Titan and the predictions that proceeded from it, here are the facts, they were wrong about a global ocean; they were wrong about huge lakes of liquid ethane; they were enormously surprised to discover sand dunes on Titan but what about geology?

They are still gathering data from this amazing moon, and once again it doesn’t look good for old age assumptions. Scientists hoped to find volcanoes but a new paper concludes that Titan gets its geology from the outside, instead from the inside. If this is found to be true then its implication consists of the surface features being created by wind, impacts and weather rather than active geology.

The hopeful cryovolcano announced last year was challenged by Moore and Pappalardo, authors of the new paper. Could the evidence be pointing to a geologically dead world on Titan? Planetary scientists previously have had an age conundrum with Titan.  They know that the methane in the atmosphere is destroyed and converted to other compounds in a one-way process. This puts limits on the age of the atmosphere which indicates a far less 4.5-billion-year age assumed for the solar system. This is why they hoped to find a reservoir of methane under the surface which would erupt in cryovolcanoes to replenish the atmosphere.

In another paper from the same source, it analyzed Titan’s equatorial sand dunes. These dunes, covering about 12.5% of the surface, were a surprise when discovered, because scientists were expecting large lakes or even a global ocean.  Scientists also doubted that the winds were strong enough at the surface to move particles around.  Dunes also exist on Mars, Venus, and of course, Earth, but on Titan, the average 300-foot-high dunes are nearly1.9 miles apart, and getting farther apart at higher latitudes.

Unlike the silica sands on Earth, the particles in Titan’s dunes are thought to be composed of hydrocarbon dust and ice precipitated out of the atmosphere.  All together, they constitute the largest known reservoir of organics on Titan, because the combined area of dunes is about as large as the United States. The dunes infringe upon the theories of Titan’s age.  Because for one, they are among Titan’s most youthful features; for another, they indicate a lack of persistent liquid on Titan’s equator, even though liquid ethane should have been raining onto the surface throughout Titan’s history!

The presence of dunes implies that much of Titan is extremely dry. If spread out evenly over the globe, the particles in this largest reservoir of organics (larger than all the observed lakes combined) would fail to cover Titan with the predicted accumulation of hydrocarbons that must have been produced in the assumed 4.5-billion-year age of the moon.

Trying To Keep Observations Old When They Look Young

Keeping Saturn old was not much of a challenge for secular planetary scientists, it was easy to just assume  the planet with it’s rings was 4.5 billion years old and they expected to observe those expectations.  However, the Cassini mission didn’t turn out the data in what they expected. For example, Saturn’s rings with its array of beautiful colors and shapes that in 1610 were called by Galileo who was the first to discover them, “”handles” or large moons on either side of the planet. Many years later, Christann Huyges proposed that Saturn was surrounded by a solid ring. The first pictures of majestic rings were taken in 1979 by Pioneer 11.

The Cassini spacecraft began to take highly detailed pictures of Saturn’s rings that were absolutely breath-taking but surprises began to mount for those who believe the Universe is billions of years old because Saturn’s rings are young-looking. The ices are way too clean to be 4.5 billion years old being under the forces acting upon them that are so pervasive. So the old idea that proposed the rings formed when Saturn did fell out of favor with a need for new imaginative explanations.

One has turned up and this is not a new idea in particular but a variant of another idea, according to the BBC news:  “Saturn’s rings may have formed when a large moon with an icy mantle and rocky core spiralled into the nascent planet.” Whenever observations in our solar system do not match the old age framework or a particular theory based on naturalism, an asteroid or comet is then evoked as the alternative explanation. For example, that alternative explanation has been used for other planets like Mercury and Venus. It was funny to read that Carl Murray thought it was “a clever way to explain the peculiarly icy nature of the rings” lol.

In Science Daily, the article boosts about how in 1979, Prof. Akiva Bar-Nun from Tel Aviv University’s Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences “developed the theory that there were lakes on Titan. Upon falling to the moon’s surface, he theorized, the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere would form lakes with a depth of approximately 43 meters had they been covering the entire surface of Titan. In addition, he hypothesized that the same elements would form aerosols in the atmosphere.” Later estimations were even higher based on the assumption it’s billions of years old. What Cassini spacecraft actually found in 2005 concerning bodies of liquid on the surface of Titan are restricted to scattered lakes in the polar regions!  The prediction vastness of the lakes was falsified while his other prediction concerning the lakes being hydrocarbons rather than water was verified.

In 2005, the Cassini spacecraft made a starling discovery, there are active geysers at the south pole of little moon Enceladus! It had astronomers shaking their heads, how could a small dead moon be still be geologically active after 4.5 billion years? It should have been frozen out billions of years ago because of lack of bulk, they say. Some computer models were created to find an alternative explanation to keep the moon old, Cassini Project Scientist Dennis Matson came up with a subsurface ocean picks up ions in the rock that bubble upward and explode out the south polar cracks. Questions emerge, like how the ocean survived for billions of years in a moon just 500 miles across, why they erupt at the south pole, and why other moons don’t do this?

JPL came up with another story which calls for friction between the sides of subsurface cracks to keep the interior warm.

“Enceladus’ orbit around Saturn is slightly oval-shaped. As it travels around Saturn, Enceladus moves closer in and then farther away. When Enceladus is closer to Saturn, it feels a stronger gravitational pull from the planet than when it is farther away. Like gently squeezing a rubber ball slightly deforms its shape, the fluctuating gravitational tug on Enceladus causes it to flex slightly. The flexing, called gravitational tidal forcing, generates heat from friction deep within Enceladus.”

Questions emerge with this story, Why does this happen only at Enceladus, and not nearby Mimas or Tethys?  What makes this unique to this one moon?  Don’t other moons librate?  Isn’t all other moons of Saturn have perfect spheres and don’t they have tidal stresses too?

It’s truly amazing on what has been discovered! While the Cassini mission has thrown secular theories a loop, it has provided a wealth of great information on confirming the Bible!

Some Say Ring Particles Can Grow Into Moons

The Cassini spacecraft continues provide a great deal of amazing observations coming from Saturn and it’s moons. One moon in particular had been photographed at it’s closest range to date. The location of the moon known as Daphnis, orbits in the “Keeler Gap” within Saturn’s rings creating scallops and gouges as it touches them.

For the first time ever, observations represent embedded objects in a dust disk have been tracked. Some scientists are desperately hoping that material can “accrete” into larger objects like moons and these same principles might apply to the creation of planets from dust disks around stars.

Space.com points out…

“The rings of Saturn might have given birth to the giant planet’s odd, small moons, scientists now reveal. These unusual moons, some of which resemble flying saucers, might have clumped together from the bits of ice and dust that make up Saturn’s majestic bands. The large moons that orbit the giant planets are thought to have finished forming roughly about when their hosts did, some 4.5 billion years ago.”

“However, calculations of the orbits of five small moons of Saturn that gather just within and beyond the periphery of the planet’s main bright rings revealed they are far too young for this to have been the case. These must be less than 10 million years old — for instance, they have bright, nearly pure ice surfaces largely unmarred by the impacts expected from meteoroids.”

The Nebular hypothesis which was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and then modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace has been falsified by recent discoveries in the modern era. The Accretion theory says that “the formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.55 to 4.56 billion years ago with the gravitational  collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.” It also has been falsified with recent observations and experiments.

“Over the past two hundred years, a standard model emerged to explain how solar systems form. Using our own solar system as a guide, the model explains the existence of a central star (our Sun), an inner system of rocky, “terrestrial” planets, and an outer system of “gas giant” planets, all orbiting in nearly the same plane of rotation as the central star.”

“Recent discoveries of planetary systems around other stars have challenged this model. These exoplanet discoveries have included gas giant planets in close orbit around their stars, some of which are in radically different planes of rotation from their primary stars.”  -Astrobiology Magazine

Quite a challenge to fit the data into a supposedly evolved solar system based on the Nebular hypothesis. Complexity due to a pattern of falsifications in a hypothesis or theory renders it useless. Inventing different schemes such as giving it a name, “migration” which makes life less probable around other stars in explaining how a gas giant could form beyond the ice line and then move inward toward the star. But is this interpretation a reliable conclusion?

What is useful science are the discoveries in which we can learn from space exploration or any other areas in science.  On the other hand, things like solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence whatsoever! Labs in the modern era have shown particles bouncing off one another or break into smaller pieces not forming into larger or even more complex particles. This confirmed James Clerk Maxwell who showed in 1859, based on his model of Saturn’s rings, that larger particles cannot coagulate from revolving small particles!

There is no evidence of a nebula collapse, of stars forming, or of planetary systems forming under the explanation of the hypothesis. The only reason why this hypothesis still exists after 200 years is because scientists  keep trying to avoid the empirical evidence that indicates natural law has not been shown to be capable of providing! Rather, they put false hope into a particular model by inventing new elements in order to keep the hypothesis or theory alive.

The creationist model is based on the Bible and The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“Generally all systems will lean toward the most probable state possible, and then over time become totally random and disorganized. Albert Einstein stated this law particular law would be impossible to eliminate. We observe this in the natural world today!”

There is observational evidence for disruption, destruction, and dissolution, Christians believe the state of nature is going down not up (since the fall of Adam) and certainly there is no accretion of small objects evolving into into bigger ones as some claim that ring particles can grow into moons.