LETTERS TO THE EDITOR || JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(2) 2013

Baumgardner, except as an odd relic plants and animals reside that were later Do radioisotope of the creation process. buried and fossilized on the surface of the present-day continents? methods yield Don Stenberg To me problems of having the Santa Rosa, CA granitic rock comprising the bulk trustworthy UNITED STATES of AMERICA of today’s continental crust cool relative ages and crystallize during the Flood »» John Baumgardner replies: are insurmountable. It seems much more reasonable to associate the for the earth’s Mr Stenberg seems not to grasp “dry land” of Genesis 1:9 with the the staggering consequences of his granitic continents and the onset of the rocks? proposal that the earth’s granitic Flood with the explosive appearance continental crust, with its large of fossils in the sediment record. John Baumgardner’s article on inventory of radioactive elements Mr Stenberg’s primary difficulty in radioisotope methods, in J. Creation and an average thickness of some being able to accept these conclusions 26(3):68–75), seems to be (in part) a 35–40 km, formed during the Flood. seems to be his reluctance to allow response to my article in the August Stenberg seems to imagine that the for God’s supernatural activity during issue, since some of the very arguments radioactive elements so abundant in creation and the Flood, despite the plain he uses in this paper regarding zircon today’s granitic rocks were somehow meaning of 2 Peter 3:3–6. crystals he also uses in his letter of introduced into pre-existing crystals response to my article in this same via some unspecified magmatic process John Baumgardner issue of the Journal. Although I agree apart from a wholesale melting and Ramona, CA with his main premise, I am struck by recrystallization of the rock. To me, and UNITED STATES of AMERICA two major things in his article. The I suspect to most earth scientists, such a first is that, as every good creationist thing is inconceivable. Potassium, after knows, evidence is always interpreted. all, is a major element in alkali feldspars

Specifically, Baumgardner seems such as orthoclase (KAlSi3O8). A Russell to take as axiomatic that the Great typical granite contains 35% or more Unconformity is the beginning of the alkali feldspar. The only imaginable Humphreys’ Flood, and interprets all of the data to fit way for such rocks, with their large with this assumption, even though not inventories of U, Th, and K, to form is cosmology all of the data fit this assumption very to crystallize from a melt. If that much well. However, the Great Unconformity molten rock were present at the earth’s Russell Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology seems to suffer from four could just as likely be the result of surface during the early portion of the major problems. His model lacks orogeny (mountain building) during the Flood, how could any life-forms have elegance; his mechanics may be last major supercontinent cycle during survived to be fossilized later? flawed; his liberties with general the Flood. Stenberg is insisting that cooling relativity are in question; and his The second is that in his figure 3, be by naturalistic means, but what conceivable naturalistic process could claims are short on empirical evidence. showing the distribution of apparent cool so much rock in the span of a few Since, from a cosmology-building ages of zircon crystals taken from weeks? If the granitic crust comprising perspective, any single one of these various places, the peaks correspond the continents today did not appear indictments is serious enough to very well with the beginning of the until during the Flood, what then was disqualify his efforts, it seems that various proposed supercontinents the “dry land” mentioned in Genesis he would have to rise above all four that seem to have formed and broken 1:9? What was it that distinguished to satisfactorily deliver a credible and up during the Flood. Specifically, the “dry land” from the “seas” on Day viable end-product to creationists. the peaks at 1.2 Ga, 1.9 Ga, and 2.7 3 in regard to topography? If there Ga correspond with the formation of were not a fairly large topographical Model not elegant supercontinents Rodinia, Columbia, difference between the sea bottom and and Vaalbara (Ur) respectively. Thus, land surface, where did the water filling Humphreys’ model is not elegant. the data cited by Baumgardner seems today’s oceans reside? If the granitic Processes move along in starts and to be explained readily in my proposed crust comprising the continents today stops and even reversals. In the model as a result of Flood processes, did not appear until during the Flood, 2nd installment of Vardiman and but it cannot be well explained by where on the earth did all the pre-Flood Humphreys’ three-part cosmology

39 JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(2) 2013 || LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

series,1 the reader is confronted with no Model’s mechanical failure need to go that deep (i.e. ‘imaginary’) less than seven instances of “Imagine”, to show that the gravitational strength Humphreys’ model may suffer a “Suppose”, “If God”, and “Let’s say” of the sphere is powerful enough to serious mechanical failure. He counts as Humphreys forces through a series cause real problems for the model. on the stretching of space to impose of in-flux parameters he continually By obeying the Schwarzschild limit the predicted 1+z cosmological adjusts in order to get Creation Week cos and keeping Φ just above the critical redshift factor on incoming light to turn out ‘just right’. This awkward value of -½c2 and making the radicand storybook approach serves to diminish rays trailing his shrinking sphere of approach the limit of zero, it’s easy to 1 the scientific thrust of his endeavour. timelessness, never considering the see that zgrav can grow to a very large His regime to transfer distant starlight very real possibility that the sphere value indeed! And this would cause to a young earth is ponderous, almost of timelessness should itself act as a a blueshifted signal, not a red one, as if God is under compulsion to gravitating body—possibly a strong since we, as observers in more or less deliver a 6-day-old planet in an ancient one—and thus countermand any hope the centre of the shrinking sphere, are universe no matter the cost. This is of achieving the Hubble redshift. standing ‘downhill’ from the incoming classic ‘tail wagging the dog’. At least Though he may be correct about light rays and not ‘uphill’. Clearly, if one ad hoc fix must be introduced into its surface not being of a material this scenario is accurate, any hope 1 Humphreys’ patchwork cosmology nature, his sphere is nonetheless a of a Hubble redshift in Humphreys’ early on. He writes: mathematically defined geometry universe is dashed. Worse, the entire “Imagine that events prior to Day with potentially strong gravitational model collapses. Four have expanded space and properties and so should possess a moved the shell of ‘waters above discernable event horizon, one which the heavens’ out to a radius of, say, may exhibit pronounced effects on Unorthodox general relativity one billion light years. This would close-proximity light waves. Humphreys takes an unorthodox have left the earth and the nearly-flat Gravitational redshift is given by ‘left-hand turn’ with general relativity. fabric of space within the ring just In his Pioneer paper,2 just before he above the critical potential.” introduces eqs. (A16, 17), he first offers However, according to Hum­ 1 1+=zgrav (1) a brief line of reasoning which—at least phreys’ own calculations, the actual 2 12− GM / rc to him—yields convincing evidence potential at this early phase will be that “In an empty expanding shell, the many times deeper than the critical where, for purposes of this study, metric must change with time.” He then level. Using his requirement of 8.8 x GM/r is equivalent to the gravitational 52 offers eq. (A17): grr = grr(t), an equation 10 kg for M, the mass of the waters potential Φ of Humphreys’ dynamical above, and 1 billion light-years for he later terms “unassailable”. Feeling sphere of timelessness of radius r(t). radius R, his eq. (3a), Φ = -GM/R, secure in this new but potentially self- Therefore, says that at the close of Creation Day made position, he then proceeds to hurl

3, the gravitational potential Φ will challenges at long-held GR dogma. It’s 1 easy to see where he is headed when be approximately 13.8 times deeper z = −1 2 grav (2) he says this: than critical. A rescue would be to 12+ Φ / c2 arbitrarily grant G, the gravitational “The textbooks assume that constant, a value 13.8 times less all components of the energy- where the terms and sign convention ν than today’s known value, an appeal momentum tensor Tμ must be zero he may have hinted at in an earlier used under the radicand are intention­­ inside the cavity, even if the shell installment.3 However, with no prior ally made identical to that of Hum­ is expanding. Their basis for that 4 instruction from our study of the early phreys. Here we consider Humphreys’ assumption is the lack of obvious universe—whether observationally or shrinking sphere of timelessness to sources of gravitational field in the hypothetically—as to why we should be a gravitating body of gravitational cavity.” assume an increase in the strength potential Φ, phi, on which incoming Confident that he has seen of G over time, our concession to do light rays from galaxies are falling what others have missed, Humphreys so would simply be ad hoc. To be and gaining energy. We can neglect continues to barrel forward by saying sure, lack of elegance in Humphreys’ the radius of the shrinking sphere at that the general relativist conclusion cosmology model-building is no small any coordinate time, since Humphreys that the coefficient L cannot be time- charge, because all it takes to ‘bump’ requires the sphere be always timeless, dependent must be wrong because it a clumsy model is just the next one in and thus the gravitational potential conflicts with his eq. (A17)! In turn, he line which is simply ‘less wrong’ (note deep enough to make the radicand in propels himself to this: “That leads me Occam’s razor). (2) imaginary.1,5 However, we don’t to question the assumption that all parts

40 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR || JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(2) 2013

of the energy-momentum tensor should the Pioneer spacecraft2—has vanished. “His model lacks elegance”— when be zero, in particular, the assumption Researchers at the Jet Propulsion did ‘elegance’, a subjective matter of r t that Tt and Tr should be zero.” From Laboratory in California have personal taste, become a standard for there, he feels emboldened to work now attributed the anomaly to the determining objective truth? However, out his new spacetime derivation, thermal recoil force acting on the my 2008 model1 is far from being com- one from which creationists may spacecraft.6 That leaves Humphreys plete, as I said: want to stand aloof—that is, until a with nothing physical in the universe “In this section I outline a specu- qualified and unbiased seconder can to tie his stretchy space idea to. And lative light transit-time scenario be retained to lend his validation. But while the controversial observed during Day 4. Other scenarios are what a confirmation of Humphreys’ phenomenon of concentric shells possible, so you should take this as derivation will emphatically not do is of galaxies centred on our home only an example of the possibilities prove or in any way uphold his claim galaxy7 could hypothetically point to that achronicity opens up.” that space is like a fabric and inherently a true centre in an inhomogeneous As an example of what Speir 3 ‘stretchy’ in a bonus dimension —a universe, it is incapable of producing terms my ‘lack of elegance’, he then claim that depicts God as a grand the requisite matter density to manifest ironically provides an inelegant calcu- cosmic manipulator—increasing, then Humphreys’ local gravitational well, a lation. He takes a mass for the ‘waters relaxing, then increasing again the feature he must have in order for his above’, 8.8 × 1052 kg, from my 2007 tension of space in order to start, stop, cosmology to work (hence, his appeal paper,2 seemingly forgetting that it was and reverse processes to guarantee to stretchy space). In sum, Humphreys’ based on getting the critical potential that creation is delivered in a ‘six- contribution falls short of compelling for the waters being out at a radius of Earth-days-package-deal’ with today’s science. Without an astrophysical 13.8 billion light-years. Then he uses observed parameters.1 This is purely tie—and in view of the other problems that same mass for my 2008 example’s an interpretation on Humphreys’ part detailed in this article—he leaves the radius of 1 billion light-years, of course and is likely borne of his ongoing, serious investigator little motivation getting a potential 13.8 times too deep. even tenacious, desire to construct a to dig deeper into his new cosmology. Had he properly processed what I said, heavily time-dilated universe. A more he could have calculated what mass elegant approach may be to impose his Randy Speir would give the critical potential my derivation—where Φ is just above the Dallas, TX example was intending. It would have critical potential—on every point of UNITED STATES of AMERICA been 13.8 times smaller than the mass space equally. There may be benefits. For instance, what if the tension he used. So the problem he imagined generated on space early on Creation References did not exist. Day 1 was sufficient to yield today’s “His mechanics may be flawed”— 1. Vardiman, L. and Humphreys, D.R., A new and then he introduces a flawed equa- low-energy photons of the ubiquitous creationist cosmology: in no time at all—part 2, background radiation? That would Acts & Facts 40(1):12–14, 2011. tion. His eq. (1) tries to show that 2. Humphreys, D.R., Creationist cosmologies my 2008 model’s redshifts are really make the CMB completely matter explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer independent. No big bang ‘surface of spacecraft, J. Creation 21(2):61–70, 2007. blueshifts. He introduces it abruptly last scattering’ necessary. And no more 3. Vardiman, L. and Humphreys, D.R., A new without any derivation. It ignores the creationist cosmology: in no time at all—part 1, effect of time dilation and length con- chasing CMB ‘shadows’. Acts & Facts 39(11):12–15, 2010. traction on the very clocks and rulers 4. Humphreys, ref. 2, Appendix. one would use to measure the redshift. 5. Humphreys, D.R., New time dilation helps Ideas lack an empirical creation cosmology, J. Creation 22(3):84–92, He should have used my equation (21) underpinning 2008; eq. (8), p. 86. for the ratio of received to emitted 6. Turyshev et al., Support for the thermal origin Finally, Humphreys’ ideas lack of the Pioneer anomaly, Physical Review Letters wavelengths: an empirical underpinning. We have 108:241101, 2012. received no instruction from any 7. Vardiman, L. and Humphreys, D.R., A new Φ creationist cosmology: in no time at all—part 3, 12+ 1 recent astrophysical manifestation or Acts & Facts 40(2):12–14, 2011. λ 2 R 2 = c 2 long-term observation that prompts λ Φ R us to adopt Humphreys’ stretchy 1 12+ 2 1 »» Russell Humphreys replies: 2 space interpretation as a general rule c of spacetime dynamics. Indeed, it I could profit by Mr Speir’s criti­ seems that the one slight hope he cisms, except that all four of them See my 2008 article for the deriva- had of underscoring his proposal of fall so far short of his target as to be tion and explanation of this equation.3 a near-earth ‘gravitational well’—the ineffectual. Here are my replies to each Though I put a box around this equa- anomalous Sunward acceleration of of them: tion to try to call attention to it, Speir

41 JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(2) 2013 || LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

redshift-versus-distance observations. It does not try to explain the cosmic microwave background, but we have several possible explanations for that. (My problem has been in trying to figure out which possibility is cor- rect.) As Speir acknowledges, various observations confirm that the cosmos has a centre and that our galaxy is near it—the fundamental tenet of not only my cosmologies, but all creationist relativistic cosmologies I know of. He seems to think my models depend on a “local gravitational well”, whereas I was using a cosmic-scale gravita- tional well. As for my explanation of the Pioneer anomaly (figure 1), Speir is rushing to acceptance of the latest secular attempt to explain the anomaly with the Pioneers’ heat being radi- ated predominantly forward, without waiting for the authors of that paper to document the all-important heat analysis underlying their conclusion.5 To sum up, I sincerely appreciate Photo: NASA informed criticisms of my work, Figure 1. Anomalous slowdown of Pioneer spacecraft may have a cosmological explanation. because they help me and the readers know whether I’ve made a mistake or for some reason ignored it. I suspect thinking on the topic and then advance not. But, regretfully, Mr Speir has not that is because he ignored, or didn’t beyond that to new ground. He is right been able to put forth a valid criticism understand, the whole section in which in saying that on new ground one could due, it would seem, to his apparent I derived it from basic principles. At be mistaken, but he appears to ignore very limited understanding of what any rate, what he should have done the fact that (as is standard practice for he is criticizing. is try to find some specific flaw in Journal of Creation) my mathematics my derivation, and then derived his were checked by an anonymous but D. Russell Humphreys own equation to replace it. Without clearly expert reviewer who showed Chattanooga, TN that groundwork, his paragraphs on no hesitation to point out flaws. That UNITED STATES of AMERICA redshift are merely shooting at a straw should at least partially satisfy Speir’s man version of my model. call for “a qualified and unbiased “His liberties with general relativ- seconder”. References ity are in question”—only by Speir. After that, Speir takes quick aim at 1. Humphreys, D.R., New time dilation helps In a superficial way, he goes through creation cosmology, J. Creation 22(3):84–92, my interpretation (based on physics 2008. See esp. pp. 88–90. Archived online at the derivation of my new metric in and Scriptural clues) elsewhere of creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84- the Appendix of my 2007 paper.4 spacetime as a real but unperceived 92.pdf . 2. Humphreys, D.R., Creationist cosmologies He applies irrelevant adjectives to material, like a fabric. It’s a bit puzzling explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer it, but nowhere does he point out a to me why he does that at this point, spacecraft, J. Creation 21(2):61–70, 2007. Mass estimate on p. 25 after eq. (25). Archived online specific mathematical flaw. I get the because that interpretation is not in the at creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_61- impression that he does not really Appendix and the mathematics therein 70.pdf . understand the mathematics or the depend in no way on the interpretation. 3. Ref. 1, pp. 88–89. basic concepts of general relativity I “His claims are short on empirical 4. Ref. 2, pp. 65–69. 5. Humphreys, D.R., Flaw in creationist solution used. The only specific thing he cites evidence”—no more so than most cos- to the Pioneer anomaly? creation.com/pioneer- is the fact that I point out a flawed as- mologies. My partial model explains anomaly-heat, 11 May 2013. sumption in conventional relativistic the principal piece of evidence, the

42