The decade of the 1980's will be an exciting period
for creationist astronomy. Voyager spacecraft launched in 1977
will take a grand tour of the outer planets. Initial photographs
of the dynamic, recently created Jupiter-moon system have already
bewildered evolutionary scientists. Halley's Comet will make its
appearance around 1986. (Comets are temporary, decaying objects
which indicate a recent creation of the solar system.) The space
telescope will ride the space shuttle into earth orbit in 1983.
This instrument will further challenge men with God's glory in
the heavens. Then there is the proposed 1982 Jupiter Effect!
This is a prediction of major earthquakes during 1982 due
to an unusual alignment of the planets. Especially targeted for
destruction is the Los Angeles region of the San Andreas fault
system. The idea was first proposed by John Gribbin and Stephen
Plagemann in 1974.¹ At first it sounds like the typical
nonsense arising from astrology. However, these two men are scientists,
both holding Ph.D.'s in astronomy from the University of Cambridge.
Their discussion of the 1982 catastrophe has received mixed reactions.
The Library Journal accepted the report and even recommended
that the government begin planning for the disaster.²
Most scientific reviews were critical of the prediction.³

Interest in the Jupiter Effect has largely subsided,
at least temporarily. However, this prediction of future earthquakes
is of special interest to Bible believers. After all, the Scripture
states repeatedly that earthquake activity is one sign of the
close of this age (Luke 21:11). Could it be that the 1982 Jupiter
Effect is the fulfillment of this Bible prophecy? Let us consider
the theory in detail to determine whether the Jupiter Effect is
valid.

JUPITER EFFECT THEORY

Gribbin and Plagemann propose the following chain
of events leading to the 1982 destruction:

JUPITER EFFECT ANALYSIS

The listed events sound reasonable and logically
related. However, let us carefully evaluate each link:

1. Gribbin and Plagemann in the first edition of
their book describe the alignment as a "super-conjunction
with all nine planets in a line on the same side of the sun."⁴
However, this statement greatly exaggerates the actual event.
The published illustrations of this alignment have been more sensational
than factual. Figure 1 shows the narrowest configuration of planets
in this century, occurring on March 10, 1982.⁵ Notice
that the planets are spread out over 98 degrees on this date.
The four major planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune,
will span an arc of some 73 degrees. In the second edition of
their book (1976), the authors leave out the statement regarding
a super-conjunction. Thus they have dropped the basis of their
whole argument.

2. The planets do, indeed, produce a tidal pull
on the sun, but the combined force is very small. For a planet
with mass m and distance r from the sun, the solar
tidal force is proportional to the quantity m/r³.
Table 1 shows that this inverse cube dependence on distance makes
the tidal effect of the outer planets entirely negligible. Jupiter
gives the largest relative pull due to its mass, hence the symbolic
name "Jupiter Effect." Table 1 further shows that Mercury,
Venus, Earth, and Jupiter dominate the tidal effect, but these
are the planets with the least alignment.

Incidentally, notice in Table 1 that Pluto is not
presently the outermost planet of the solar system. Due to its
highly elliptical orbit, part of its path around the sun actually
falls inside Neptune’s orbit. Pluto crossed inside Neptune
in 1978 and will remain the eighth planet until the year 2000.
There is no danger of collision because Pluto’s orbit is
tilted out of the plane of the solar system.

Figure 1. The planetary configuration of March 10, 1982. The positions were taken from Table 1.

Just how significant is the solar tidal force?
Let us compare the tidal pull of our moon on the earth with that
of Jupiter on the sun. The Jupiter-sun separation is 2,024 times
the earth-moon distance, and Jupiter's mass is 25,850 times that
of the moon. Hence, the Jupiter-sun tidal force is only that of
the familiar earth-moon force. That is, the earth tidal pull due
to our moon is nearly one-third million times greater than the
solar pull due to Jupiter! Further calculations show that the
actual height of the tidal bulge caused by Jupiter on the sun
is less than one millimeter!⁶ The stable sun certainly
appears to have been formed for man's advantage, not for his annihilation!

3. Does an increased tidal pull on the sun lead
to greater solar activity? This question has been debated for
years and still remains uncertain. The sun does have an
eleven-year cycle of sunspot activity, but the reason for this
is unknown. The next maximum of solar activity may occur near
the end of 1979.⁷ Thus, there should actually be a
decrease in solar disturbance by 1982, not an increase.

Excluding Pluto, a rough alignment of the planets
Jupiter through Neptune occurs about every 179 years. Thus, the
Jupiter Effect hypothesis may be evaluated by checking the records
for the similar alignment of 1804. The result is that sunspot
activity was exceedingly weak during that year!⁸

If the Gribbin-Plagemann theory is correct, there
should also be high solar activity whenever the planets are lined
up on both sides of the sun. After all, tidal bulges always
occur in pairs on opposite sides of the object, whether on the
earth or the sun. If the planets do something violent to the sun
when they are in conjunction, then they should have the
same damaging effect when in opposition. The situation
of a narrow opposition (25° ) last occurred in 1901. Records
show that to be a year in which the sun reached a quiet minimum
of activity! History does not support the Jupiter Effect.

4. Increased solar activity does, indeed, lead to
an increased flux of solar particles. Those that impinge on the
earth are evidenced by bright aurora displays and communication
problems, but not earthquakes. No correlation has been
found between solar activity, changes in the earth's rotation
rate, and earthquakes. During the great solar flares of 1960 and
1972, for example, no changes occurred in the earth's spin. A
study of 9,697 major earthquakes has shown no dependence on solar
activity.⁹ Another survey was made of solar activity
with respect to the positions of Venus and Earth during the years
1902 to 1965.¹⁰ No meaningful correlation was
detected between sunspots and the alignment of these two planets.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that the scientific reasoning for the
Jupiter Effect is invalid. The planets will not be closely
aligned in 1982, and such an alignment would have no effect on
earthquake activity regardless. Furthermore, the Jupiter Effect
fails the test of reproducibility in history. This discussion
reminds us of the inherent uncertainty of all natural scientific
ideas. Some are false from the beginning; others change gradually
as new data accumulate. Only the special revelation of God through
His Son and His Word provides a sure foundation for truth. If
not 1979, then the year 1982 may, indeed, introduce the end time
events of this age. Our duty is to have our hearts prepared and
to be redeeming the time on a daily basis. Mark 13:32 reminds
us that no one knows the exact time of the events accompanying
our Lord's return to earth. One thing is certain: The Jupiter
Effect does not enter the picture because the effect does not
exist.

REFERENCES

¹ Gribbin, J. and Plagemann, S., The
Jupiter Effect, New York: Walker and Co., 1974. p. 261.

² Walter, K. G., Jupiter Effect review in
the Library Journal, 99:2975, 1974.

³ Physics Today, 28:4, 1975, pp. 74-5;
Science, 186, 1974, pp. 728-9; American Scientist, 62,
1974, pp. 721-2.

⁴ Gribbin, p. 127.

⁵ Data are from the U.S. Naval Observatory.

⁶ Meeus, J., "Comments on The Jupiter Effect,"
Icarus, 26, 1975, p. 261.

⁷ Kane, R.P., "Predicted intensity of the solar
maximum," Nature, 274:5667, 1978, pp. 139-40.

⁸ Meeus, p. 265.

⁹ Van Gils, J.M., "Etude statistique des tremblements
de terre enregistres a Uccle de 1920 a 1945," Ciel Terre,
65, 1949, pp. 125-40.

¹⁰ Meeus, p. 258.

* Donald B. DeYoung received his B.S. and
M.S. degrees in applied physics at Michigan Technological University
and a Ph.D. from Iowa State University in physics. He is Chairman,
Physical Sciences, at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana. During
the 1978-79 academic year he is serving as a Visiting Professor
of Science and Mathematics at Christian Heritage College, El
Cajon, California. He is a member of several honorary societies
and the Indiana Academy of Sciences. Dr. DeYoung has published
technical papers in physics and is co-author with John C. Whitcomb
of the recent book, The Origin of the Moon.