Our Created Solar System - Venus

Welcome to Venus, named for the Roman goddess of beauty, and the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. Viewed from space, the planet would seem aptly named. The swirling cloud cover in soft tones indeed appears beautiful. However, we shall soon discover that Venus's beauty is only skin deep; this is a world of extremes. As the second planet from the sun, Venus has a relatively short year: orbiting the sun roughly every 225 Earth days. The planet's rotation, however, is the first of many strange things we'll discover. Venus rotates very slowly, completing one Venusian day roughly every 243 Earth days, meaning that on Venus, days last longer than years. Even more impressive, however, is that Venus rotates in retrograde (scientist speak for "backwards"). Assuming a person standing on Venus could see the sun through all that cloud cover, the sun would appear to rise in the west and set in the east. Venus has often been nicknamed in recent years, "Earth's Twin", because it is almost exactly the same size as the Earth, and equally rocky. This is as far as the comparison lasts, however.

The Venusian surface is a harsh, unwelcoming place. With an atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide, Venusian air is poison to humans, not that you'd live long enough to die of carbon dioxide poisoning.

Very reminiscent of a "lake of burning sulfur"

With an average temperature of 900F (482C) Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Its crushing atmosphere exhibits the pressure of 92 bar, a pressure only found on Earth in the darkest depths of the oceans. In brief then, you would be crushed and melted before you would have the chance to breathe an unhealthy level of Venusian air. Even the Soviet probes that landed on Venus in the 1980s did not survive long, despite being designed to withstand the conditions. This is the closest place in the universe that we have ever found to a literal "Hell on Earth" (Hell on Venus?). The surface of this hellish place is mostly smooth, volcanic plains, though some mountains exist in scattered formations. A noticeable concentration of sulfur in the atmosphere indicates that volcanic activity is still prevalent. Venus is described as resembling a young Earth, in the early stages of planetary development. This is essentially what Earth, according to the Nebular Hypothesis, looked like billions of years ago. This, of course, presents a problem for Evolution. If Venus and Earth are "twins" that formed from swirling gas and dust 4.5 billion years ago... why does one appear its age while the other looks a few billion years younger? Also, why does Venus not have a magnetic field? It possesses a very slight field caused by the interaction of solar wind with the ionosphere, but does not generate a magnetic field of its own, despite the fact that such a geologically active planet is a prime candidate for a Dynamo Theory style magnetic field, and a powerful one at that.

More importantly, why does it rotate backwards? Remember, according to Evolution, the entire Solar System formed from swirling dust and gas orbiting in a prograde direction around the young Sun. It is impossible that Venus could have naturally formed in retrograde rotation.

Here I come to save the day!

Initially, the suggestion was gravitational braking on a significant tidal bulge. This, however, was disproved by the Soviet Venera missions and the American Mariner missions that mapped the planet and discovered it to be almost perfectly round. Did this stop the scientists from continuing with their hypothesis? Certainly not! As Spike Psarris phrased it, "Well, you see, Venus did form according to Evolution. But then, a long time ago... things happened." What things, you ask? Why, none other than the Large-Impact Hypothesis! That's right. An asteroid hit it!

There's just one problem with that idea, too. A collision of the size and force necessary to not only stop Venus's rotation, but cause it to rotate backwards, would have left some significant clues behind. Venus should have been knocked over onto its side and sent into an eccentric orbit. Imagine a spinning top, suddenly struck by something. That top is going to wobble and lose its balance, it will not spin smoothly.  Venus, however, is a wonderful spinning top. With an axial tilt of only 2 degrees, Venus does not experience solstices the way Earth does, and with the most circular orbit of any planet in the Solar System, Venusian seasons are virtually nonexistent. In fact, Venus exhibits absolutely no signs of having formed according to Evolution, only to have been thrown out of whack later. "Oh, but there is the fact that otherwise Venus would contradict Evolutionary Theory, so we know it's true!" says Spike Psarris, sarcastically. Rather, Venus looks very much like it has always been this way, a fact which causes Evolution no small amount of consternation, but fits quite perfectly with the idea of a recent Creation.

Once more, we are left in awe at the wonders we see in the universe. Venus is a truly unique world, beautiful from above, hell from below, a rebel among worlds, proudly defying everything that should make sense about itself. In the last 35 years we have learned much about this planet thanks to Russian and American missions, and new missions are being planned even now. There is still much to learn about our planet's rebellious "sister", many mysteries to be solved. But as we explore this world, let us do so with a proper attitude of awe and respect for the powers of the Creator, rather than stubbornly seeking a way to fit this world into a Creator-less narrative.

We hope you'll come back in two weeks as our journey comes home for a visit to the lovely, majestic planet known as Earth! There is much still to discover even about our own native world, and we look forward to sharing these wonders with you here at Fiat Lux!

Our Created Solar System - Mercury

Welcome to the first planet in our Solar System: tiny Mercury. Mercury is only 3,000 miles in diameter, making it about as wide as the continental United States. It is smaller than all of the other planets (except for Pluto and some of the other Dwarf Planets), and is even smaller than some of the larger moons in the Solar System, such as Ganymede or Titan. One Mercurian day lasts about as long as 58 days on Earth, and Mercury orbits the sun every 88 Earth days, giving it the shortest year in the Solar System. Mercury's gravity is also a little less than half that of Earth's. The little planet has no atmosphere, though, and endures drastic temperature extremes ranging from a high of 840F to a low of -280F (449C to -173C). As a result, Mercury would not be a very pleasant place to live or to visit. The little planet has almost no axial tilt, meaning it does not experience the lengthening and shortening of days that Earth does. It does, however, have one of the most elliptical orbits in the Solar System, giving it dramatic seasonal changes.

Mercury is also surprisingly dense; more dense than any planet in the Solar System save for Earth itself. There's only one problem with that. According to the Nebular Hypothesis, Mercury cannot be that dense. You see, Mercury has a very large iron core; up to 75% of the planet may in fact be nothing but an iron core. This is simply not possible according to Evolution. But don't take our word for it. Listen to the words of Evolutionist Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, who says: 'It has become clear that none of these proposed models work, and the high density is conveniently accommodated by the large-impact hypothesis, which makes Mercury unique.' (Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective pg. 194)

What is the 'large-impact hypothesis' you ask? Well, we're glad you asked. You may remember in our last post on the Solar System that we discussed the need to rescue the Nebular Hypothesis from itself by invoking asteroid collisions? Well, there's a scientific name for that: The Large-Impact Hypothesis. And while Dr. Taylor tells us this hypothesis makes Mercury unique, we'll soon discover how very common it is that this hypothesis is invoked. So, in brief then, Evolution tells us that Mercury did indeed form according to the Nebular Hypothesis, but at some point in time in Mercury's history, a large asteroid struck it and stripped away all of the lighter material, leaving behind the second most dense planet in the Solar System, with the largest core (proportionally speaking) of them all. 'So what's the evidence for this collision?' Spike Psarris asks. 'Well, only that if it didn't occur Mercury would disprove Evolution!' That's right. There is absolutely no evidence that such an impact ever occurred. The only reason we have to assume it did is that no other possible explanation can be found for how Mercury formed according to the Nebular Hypothesis and yet exists in its current state.

But this isn't the only problem Mercury presents for Evolution. When Mariner 10 visited the planet in the 1970s, it detected a magnetic field, much like Earth's (though far weaker). However, according to Evolution, Mercury can't have a magnetic field. Magnetic fields are very volatile things, with rather short lifespans. Indeed, our own magnetic field has weakened considerably since we started measuring it a few centuries ago. The only means that modern science has come up with to explain magnetic fields that last for billions of years (as opposed to thousands) is what is called the Dynamo Theory. Simply put, according to Dynamo, if a planet has a molten core, the combination of the liquid metal in the core and the planet's rotation can create a long-lasting magnetic field.

Mercury compared to the Earth

Now that's all well and good, but if Mercury is 4.5 billion years old, it's also impossible. As Dr. Taylor tells us, 'Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that planet should have frozen solid eons ago' (Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and Its Place in the Cosmos pg.163). Mercury's iron core, according to Evolution, ought to be one big solid chunk of iron, not the fluid, molten core that Earth has. Without a molten core, Dynamo cannot work. And after 4.5 billion years, a pure iron core cannot remain molten. How does Evolution rescue itself this time? Well, there are ways to keep Mercury's core molten for so long. If it were an iron-sulfide core, it could indeed still be molten and allow Dynamo to work. But that's also a problem. Sulfur is too volatile an element. It is impossible, according to the Nebular Hypothesis, for a planet to form as close to the Sun as Mercury did and possess an iron-sulfide core. Even in seeking to rescue their theory from itself, they undermine it.

Mercury's iron core and extant magnetic field present absolutely no problems for Creationists, however. There are multiple methods of short-term magnetic field generation, such as remnant magnetism. These methods would not allow for a billions of years old magnetic field like Dynamo does, but in a universe that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old? No problem at all for remnant magnetism. Indeed, a belief that Mercury was created several thousand years ago fits the data much better than a belief that Mercury slowly accreted from swirling material 4.5 billion years ago. Mercury thus brings to mind the words of I Corinthians 1:27, 'But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.' Those that think themselves wise enough to discern how the universe formed are utterly baffled by tiny Mercury. Instead, we can stand in awe of the Creator's majesty as it is expressed by this little world.

Join us the first weekend in October as we continue our exploration of the Solar System with a trip to Venus, often called 'Earth's Twin'!

Our Created Solar System - Introduction

The Solar System (not to scale)

Welcome to the first post in this series about our Solar System! The Solar System is a truly amazing place, and we're very excited to begin exploring it with you. Now most people, when they think of the Solar System, imagine the traditional nine planets, as displayed here. These are the objects we will be exploring in great detail over the course of this series, but they are only a tiny fraction of everything to be found within the Solar System. There is much, much more to see and discover!

To give you an idea of how vast the Solar System is, we'll start with distance. Distances in space are huge; so huge, it's not reasonable to measure them in miles or kilometers. You are no doubt familiar with light years, the unit we use to measure the distances between stars. Well, just as miles are too small to measure the Solar System, light years are too big. So science has come up with an intermediate unit for measuring the Solar System. It has been named, quite creatively, the Astronomical Unit, or AU. 1 AU is equivalent to the distance the Earth is from the sun, or 93 million miles (150 million km). Our Solar System is some 50 AU in size (about 4.5 billion miles/7.5 billion km). Within those 50 AU, there are 8 universally accepted planets, 5 dwarf planets (Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris) and roughly 700,000 other orbiting objects such as asteroids, comets, and moons.

Now you may be wondering, "Where did all this stuff come from?" There are basically two schools of thought on the issue: The Bible vs. the Big Bang, or put another way, Creation vs. Evolution. (When we use the term "Evolution" in the context of astronomy, we're referring to the concept that everything formed gradually over time without a Creator.) Creation, drawing from the Bible, tells us that the entire Universe was created over the course of six days some 6 - 10 thousand years ago. Evolution tells us quite another story, called the "Nebular Hypothesis", which was first postulated by Immanuel Kant in the 1750s, and further refined over time. It has become, since the 19th century, the dominant accepted model of the origins of the Solar System.

An artist's concept of the early Solar System, some 4 billion years ago

According to Evolution, the Universe began with the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. About 4.6 billion years ago, our Solar System began to form. Clouds of dust and gas slowly began to swirl and condense, first into the Sun, and then into many orbiting bodies. This process is called accretion. This hypothesis claims to explain the shape of the Solar System, the orbits and rotations of the planets, as well as the reason why the inner planets are rocky while the outer planets are gaseous. In fact, this model is so widely accepted by modern science that it is usually treated as fact, is often incorrectly labeled "The Nebula Theory" (when in reality is still hasn't gotten past "Hypothesis"), and is the only model used or considered by the majority of modern scientists.

"There's only one problem with this model," says U.S. Military Space Engineer Spike Psarris, "and that's that it doesn't work." You see, we've actually tested accretion. You can test it in your own home in fact. And it works, on a small scale. Small particles of dust do, in fact, cling together and grow into larger particles of dust. You can see this with the dust bunnies under your bed, or the filth on the lint screen in your dryer. Accretion is a real thing, and it works... until you try to take it too far. We can demonstrate accretion on a small scale, and we can simulate it on a medium scale. Simulations have shown how dust clouds in space can indeed accrete into small rocks, those rocks can accrete into larger rocks, and larger rocks can accrete into asteroids or "planetesimals". The problem is, we can't figure out how planetesimals accrete into planets. That does not work. And yet, for the Nebular Hypothesis to be true, it must work.

Even Evolutionists themselves admit the failure of the Nebular Hypothesis to actually explain how the Solar System formed. According to Professor Martin Harwit of Cornell University, "Once these planetesimals have been formed, further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood." (Martin Harwit, "Astrophysical Concepts" pg. 553) So, they come up with this intricate, elaborate explanation, and finally must admit that they don't actually know how their own idea works.

Accretion isn't the only reason this model doesn't work. Remember when we said that the Nebular

The hero of the story

Hypothesis is supposed to explain why the planets are the way they are? It actually doesn't. Evolution cannot actually account for a single planet being the way it is. So, and I kid you not, the go-to explanation for almost every single contradiction between reality and this model is that an asteroid hit it. You see, everything formed exactly the way Evolution predicted it should... but at some point in time, a big fat rock smashed into it and made it the way it is today. That's not a joke. But as we explore the Solar System in depth over the next several months, you will see just how comical, how unbelievable, how un-scientific even, this claim really is. But it is a necessary claim to rescue their own hypothesis from reality, for as Spike tells us, and we shall soon see, "Each [planet] in a unique way disproves Evolution".

The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), and they do. The heavens also speak of a young Solar System, a young Universe. We hope that you will return with us in two weeks as we begin our amazing journey through the Solar System to discover its wonders, beginning with Mercury!

Planetary News: The Return of Fiat Lux and Beginning of a New Program

We have wonderful news! After three years of silence, Fiat Lux returns! We've undergone a few changes, but the mission will remain the same. This site will remain dedicated to teaching about the wonders of the universe from a Creationist perspective.

To kick off the return of Fiat Lux, we're going to begin a new semi-monthly series called "Our Created Solar System". The series will take readers through the Solar System, from Mercury out to Pluto, and discuss how each and every object in our Solar System is evidence for Creation, and how those same objects disprove the notion that our Solar System came about on its own billions of years ago. Much of the direction for this program will draw from a 2006 presentation given by U.S. Military Space Engineer Spike Psarris at the Seattle Creation Conference.

We will be drawing a lot from Spike's presentation, but there will also be extra information independently researched. Spike has a lot of important things to tell us, though, so we're going to draw heavily from him. In his own words, "Although we are told... over and over again that science has it all figured out, that Evolution is the answer, that there are no problems with this theory whatsoever... I'm here to tell you that's not true."

We will see and hear more from Spike and Fiat Lux in the coming weeks. Look for a new post in the Our Created Solar System series every first and third Saturday of the month! And don't worry, we'll still post the information you've come to expect: exoplanets, whenever we can. We've lot's to catch up on in the realm of planets beyond our Solar System.

Image taken from http://theheavensdeclaredvd.com/

Planetary News: Star Trek Comes to Life

(I am not the professional who assembled and painted this)

It may not be long before ships like this well-known beauty become a reality. Okay, okay, so we're still a long way from warp drive (or any equivalent), but the light/time barrier is not what we're here to discuss today (that will come another time). But what other type of propulsion do Star Trek ships use? This one may be harder to guess if you're not a Trekkie. The answer is: Impulse Drive. Star Trek's famous Warp Drive is used for faster-than-light (FTL) travel. But for sub-light speeds, Star Trek ships used what they called "Impulse Drive" and it is this marvelous piece of technology that may actually be ours in the near future. And before you say, "Well, they just borrowed the name because it sounds cool," let me tell you, it is actually going to work like the Star Trek one. Dilithium crystals and all.

Basically, the University of Alabama-Huntsville has teamed up with NASA, Boeing, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to bring you what they are calling, "Nuclear Fusion Impulse Rocket Engines." According to team member Ross Cortez, "The fusion fuel we're focusing on is deuterium [a stable isotope of hydrogen] and Li6 [a stable isotope of the metal lithium] in a crystal structure. That's basically dilithium crystals we're using." Now, the team has no delusions here. This is not warp drive. This early impulse drive won't even come close to the speed of light (C). In fact, achieving C is impossible according to Einsteinian Relativity, though some scientists believe we may be able to "skip" C and go right into FTL. But that's all theoretical, and has nothing to do with impulse drive, so we'll not spend anymore time on FTL. As previously stated, this impulse drive won't get us anywhere near C, but it will get us from Earth to Mars in about three months of travel time (which is twice as fast as the other major experimental propulsion: nuclear fission). And the best part: the plan is to have a functioning impulse drive by 2030!

Just think of it! In about 17 or 18 years time, we could have a viable means of getting a manned mission to Mars in reasonable time. If the impulse drive works, we could experience in 2031 what others experienced in 1969: live transmission from a human setting foot on an alien world! With this in mind, it is not unthinkable that the average person could make a trip to Mars by the early 2040s. Especially with the advent of private space-flight companies. Mars could be the practice arena for extraterrestrial colonization. Think about it! We've detected habitable worlds like Zarmina's World and Gl 667Cc, but they're over 20 light years away. Even with impulse drive that's a multi-generational journey. Mars is the only habitable world within easy reach. And in a couple of decades we could be sending colonists from Earth to Mars in less time than it took early colonists to get from England to America! We could cross the gulf of space that lies between these two worlds quicker than those 450 years previous could cross that Atlantic Ocean that lay between the two worlds of their time. Isn't that an exciting prospect? Mars is almost within reach!

I think I shall devote my next post to the Red Planet, in light of this news. And then I shall resume discussion of habitable exoplanets.

Sources:

http://txchnologist.com/post/32463368168/channeling-star-trek-researchers-to-begin-fusion

http://www.startrek.com/article/impluse-engines-to-be-a-reality-by-2030

Two Years Later

Two years ago today Stephen S. Vogt, R. Paul Butler, and their team discovered Zarmina's World. As we well know, the initial excitement was offset by the doubting crowd, and indeed the celebration was killed almost before it began when Stephane Udry and his team reassessed the data and came to the conclusion that the planet simply did not exist. Over the past two years, more astronomers have looked at the data, and run tests of their own. Some agree with Udry, others with Vogt. The University of Puerto Rico certainly seems to think Vogt is right. And an honest appraisal of the data tells us Vogt has an 88% - 96% chance of being right. So after two years we still don't know for sure whether Zarmina's World is out there or not. But despite the naysayers, it is looking more and more like the answer is that it exists. And that is exciting news for me.

I apologize for the quietness this month. It's been a busy one. I'm hoping to have more for you all this coming October. I've got the next couple of Planet Profiles planned, and I'm keeping my eye out for any exciting news relating to Zarmina's World or other exoplanets. As soon as I know something, I'll put it here. I'm also planning to start a section on other phenomena in space, from stars to nebulae. Maybe even a section on our own solar system. So thanks for sticking with me thus far, and keep checking in with Fiat Lux, your source for space exploration with a Creationist viewpoint!

Planet Profile: Gliese 667Cc

Official Name: Gliese 667Cc
Unofficial Names: Holy Grail of Exoplanets
Discovered: 21 November, 2011 (made public 2 February, 2012)
Discoverer: Steven S. Vogt et al
Mass: 4.1 - 4.9x that of Earth
Orbital Period: 28 days

Steven S. Vogt has done it again (or so my sources seem to imply, I can't find anything incontrovertible). And this time there's no denying him. Welcome to Gliese 667Cc, also coming to be known as the "Holy Grail of Exoplanets." Like Zarmina's World, Gl 667Cc rests squarely within the Goldilocks Zone. Unlike Zarmina's World, this one is 100% confirmed. It's nickname comes from the following statement made by Vogt, "It's the Holy Grail of exoplanet research to find a planet orbiting around a star at the right distance so it's not too close where it would lose all its water and not too far where it would freeze." Gl 667Cc makes the number two spot on the University of Puerto Rico's Habitable Planet List, with an astounding SE rating of 0.85 (Zarmina's World beats it out by 0.07 with an SE rating of 0.92). Although it is as perfectly "Goldilocks" as Zarmina's World, the factors that most likely reduce its SE rating are its greater mass (meaning higher gravity, roughly 2Gs) and even shorter orbital period. Like Zarmina's World, it is tidally locked, meaning that one side will always face the parent star while the other side always faces away. However, this doesn't mean the same thing for Gl 667Cc as it does for Zarmina's World.

You see, Zarmina's World orbits the red dwarf star Gliese 581, which like our sun is a single star. The Gliese 667 system, however, is not a single star. It isn't even a binary system. It is a trinary system. That means three stars orbiting each other. The smallest of these three is Gliese 667C, a red dwarf. It is unsurprising to find another Goldilocks planet orbiting a red dwarf. Red dwarfs are prime candidates for habitable worlds for a number of reasons which we shall not discuss here (perhaps in another, more star-related post). Since Gl 667C is the parent star, it will be giving constant day to the side of Gl 667Cc that faces it. However, the other side of the planet is not necessarily bathed in endless night. The other two stars would appear somewhat brighter than our moon. They would give enough light to provide a day/night cycle to the posterior half of the planet (though likely not as pronounced a cycle as we have on Earth). This would actually make the posterior half the more preferable side of the planet, unlike Zarmina's World where the anterior side is preferable. The fact that the Gl 667 system is trinary would also make the sky a marvelous sight to behold at any time of day.

Here is a picture comparing the approximate size of the planet (we can only guess at the size based on the known mass) with Earth and Mars, the habitable worlds of our own system. Scientists are confident that worlds such as Gl 667Cc or Zarmina's World will have some kind of life on them. Guillem Anglasa-Escude, one of the astronomers who supports Vogt's claims about Zarmina's World, had this to say about Gl 667Cc, Zarmina's World, and other habitable worlds around red dwarf stars, "With the advent of a new generation of instruments, researchers will be able to survey many dwarf stars for similar planets and eventually look for spectroscopic signatures of life in one of these worlds." While I highly doubt that we will ever encounter life on a scale comparable to humanity (the Bible does say we are the Crown of Creation, after all), I would not be surprised if we found plant life, fungi, and maybe even insects, birds, or primitive mammals on these worlds. It is fascinating to speculate whether these creatures will look anything like Earth's, or if they will be completely alien to us. Personally, I wouldn't put either option past our Creator. As more and more of these worlds are discovered, the exciting prospect of learning more about the universe our God has created grows beyond our wildest dreams. Who knows? Perhaps within our lifetimes the technology will exist to enable us to either visit these worlds, or at the very least see more accurate pictures of them. Gl 667 is only 22 lightyears away, after all (roughly the same distance as Gl 581). That's about 6 parsecs, and therefore right in our stellar neighbourhood. As Kingdom Come's song, "Stargazer" would put it, "Who knows what will come in time?"

Sources:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334455/20120427/astronomers-discover-new-planet-gliese-667cc-life.htm

http://mobile.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-top-5-potentially-habitable-alien-planets-2012-7/gliese-667cc-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_667