Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the
Advancement of Science 1, 38 (1984).
Robert V. Gentry*
Columbia Union College
Takoma Park, Maryland 20012
If the earth was created, it is axiomatic that created (primordial) rocks must now exist on the earth,
and if there was a Flood there must now exist sedimentary rocks and other evidences of that event.
But, if the general uniformitarian principle is correct, the universe evolved to its present
state only by the unvarying action of known physical laws and all natural phenomena must
fit into the evolutionary mosaic. If this fundamental principle is wrong, all the
pieces in the evolutionary mosaic become unglued. Evidence that something is
drastically wrong comes from the fact that this basic evolutionary premise has
failed to provide a verifiable explanation for the widespread occurrence of Po
halos in Precambrian granites, a phenomena which I suggest are in situ evidences
that those rocks were created almost instantaneously in accord with Psalm 33:6,9:
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them
by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and
it stood fast." I have challenged my colleagues to synthesize a piece of
granite with 218Po halos as a means of falsifying this interpretation,
but have not received a response. It is logical that this synthesis should be
possible if the uniformitarian principle is true. Underdeveloped U halos in
coalified wood having high U/Pb ratios are cited evidences for a Flood-related
recent (within the past few thousand years) emplacement of geological formations
thought to be more than 100,000,000 years old. Results of differential He analyses
of zircons taken from deep granite cores are evidence for a recently created,
several-thousand-year-age of the earth. A creation model with three singularities,
involving events beyond explanation by known physical laws, is proposed to account
for these evidences. The first singularity is the ex nihilo creation of
our galaxy nearly 6000 years ago. Finally, a new model for the structure of the
universe is proposed based on the idea that all galaxies, including the Milky Way,
are revolving about the Center of the universe, which from Psalm 103:19 I equate
with the fixed location of God's throne. This model requires an absolute reference
frame in the universe whereas modern Big Bang cosmology mandates there is no Center
(the Cosmological Principle) and no absolute reference frame (the theory of
relativity). The motion of the solar system through the cosmic microwave radiation
is cited as unequivocal evidence for the existence of an absolute reference frame.
[* Current Address: P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912]
Figure 1. The scale for all photomicrographs is 1 cm = 25.0
μm, except for (h') and (r'), which are enlargements of (h) and (r).
(a) Schematic drawing
of 238U halo with radii proportional to ranges of
alpha particles in air.
(b) Schematic of 210Po halo.
[(c) Schematic of 214Po halo.
(d) Schematic of 218Po halo.]
(e) Coloration band formed in mica by 7.7-Mev
4He ions. Arrow shows direction of beam penetration.
(f) A 238U halo in biotite formed by sequential
α-decay of the 238U decay series.
238U halo in fluorite with only two rings
(h) Normally developed 238U halo in
fluorite with nearly all rings visible.
(h') Same halo as in (h) but at higher magnification.
(i) Well-developed 238U halo in fluorite with slightly blurred
(j) Overexposed 238U halo in fluorite, showing inner ring obliteration.
(k) Two overexposed 238U halos in fluorite, showing outer ring
[(l) More overexposed 238U halo in fluorite, showing outer ring reversal effects.]
(m) Second-stage reversal in a 238U halo in fluorite. The ring sizes are unrelated to
238U alpha particle ranges.
(n) Three 210Po halos of light, medium, and very dark coloration in
biotite. Note the difference in radius.
(o) Three 210Po halos of varying degrees of coloration in
(p) A 214Po halo in biotite.
(q) Two 218Po halos in biotite.
(r) Two 218Po halos in fluorite.
(r') Same halos as in (r) but at higher magnification.
(Reprinted from ref. (2) by permission of the AAAS.)
Figure 2. The scale for all photographs is 1 cm = 25
(a) Dwarf halos (≃2 μm radius) in Ytterby mica.
(b) Dwarf halos (3 μm < r < 9 μm) in Ytterby mica.
(c) Overexposed Th halo in ordinary biotite.
(d) Th halo in Madagascan mica.
(e) Th halo in Madagascan mica with a larger inclusion.
(f) U halo in Madagascan mica.
(g) Giant halo of ≃65 μm radius,
and two light Th halos (Madagascan mica).
(h) Giant halo of ≃90 μm radius Madagascan mica.
(Reprinted from ref. (1) by permission of the ARNS.)
Uranium and Thorium Radiohalos in Minerals
A radioactive halo is generally defined as any type of discolored,
radiation-damaged region within a mineral and usually results from either
alpha or, more rarely, beta emission from a central radioactive inclusion.
When the central inclusions, or radiocenters, are small (1 μm),
the U and Th daughter alpha emitters produce a series of discolored concentric
spheres, which in thin section appear microscopically as concentric rings whose
radii correspond to the ranges of the various alpha emitters in the mineral.
Ordinary radiohalos are herein defined as those which initiate with
238U and/or 232Th alpha decay (1),
irrespective of whether the actual U or Th halo closely matches the
respective idealized alpha decay patterns. In a few instances the match
is very good.
Compare, for example, the idealized U halo ring pattern in Fig. 1a
with the well developed U halos in biotite (Fig. 1f) and fluorite (Fig. 1h,h');
these halos have ring sizes that agree very well (1,2)
with the 4He ion accelerator-induced coloration bands in these
minerals (see Table 1).
In general a halo ring can be assigned to a definite
alpha emitter with confidence only when the halo radiocenter is about 1
μm in size.
In other cases, however, such as the halos in fluorite (1,2)
shown in Fig. 1(g, i-m), much work was required before these halos could be
reliably associated with U alpha decay (2). As explained elsewhere
(2), reversal effects accompanying extreme radiation damage caused
the appearance of rings that could not be associated with definite alpha emitters
of the U decay chain. Thus some halos may exhibit a ring structure different from
the idealized U and/or Th alpha decay patterns because of reversal effects.
And even though most other halos exhibit blurred ring structures due to the large
size of the inclusions, nevertheless the outer dimensions allow them to be classified
as U and/or Th types.
Modern analytical techniques such as Scanning Electron Microscope X Ray Fluoresence
(SEMXRF) and Ion Microprobe Mass Spectrometry (IMMA) methods have been utilized to
show that U and Th and their respective end-product isotopes of Pb are contained
within the U and Th halo radiocenters. As is noted shortly, these modern analytical
techniques have proved quite valuable in demonstrating that Po halo radiocenters in
minerals contain little or no U or Th, which is in direct contrast to the abundance
of these elements detected in the U and/or Th halo radiocenters
Radioactive Halos and the Question of Invariant Decay Rates
A most important question pertaining to the evolution/creation issue is whether
radioactive decay rates have remained invariant during the course of earth history.
If they have, geochronologists are justified in interpreting various parent/daughter
isotope ratios found in undisturbed rocks in terms of elapsed time. If on the other
hand there have been periods in earth history where the decay rate was higher
(i.e., during a singularity), then in general the isotope ratios in rocks would not
reflect elapsed time except in the specific case where secondary rocks or substances
containing only the parent radio-nuclide formed at the end of the most recent
singularity. The practical significance of this last statement will be evident in
the discussion of the secondary, U halos found in coalified wood specimens from the
Even though most of Joly's (4) measurements of U and Th halos
showed their radii were about the sizes expected from the alpha decay energies
of the U and Th decay chains, nevertheless he claimed there were slight discrepancies
which raised questions about whether the radioactive decay rate had been constant over
geological time. His result was not confirmed however by later halo radii measurements
(5-10), which agreed to within experimental error
with the theoretical sizes. To eliminate any uncertainty about this correspondence
I irradiated specimens of various minerals with He ion beams of varying energies to
produce different size coloration bands whose widths corresponded to the various alpha
energies of the U decay chain. The results of these experiments, presented in
show there is excellent agreement between the U and Th halo radii and equivalent He
ion produced penetration depths (2).
The basis for thinking that standard size U and Th halos imply an invariant decay
rate throughout geological time proceeds from the quantum mechanical treatment of
alpha decay, which in general shows that the probability for alpha decay for a given
nuclide is dependent on the energy with which the alpha particle is emitted from the
nucleus. The argument is that if the decay rate had varied in the past, then the U and
Th halo rings would be of different size now because the energies of the alpha particles
would have been different during the period of change. This argument assumes that a
change in the decay rate must necessarily be explainable by quantum mechanics, which
is of course an integral part of the uniformitarian framework. Thus, the usual proof
of decay rate invariance based on standard size U and Th halos is nothing more than a
circular argument which assumes the general uniformitarian principle is correct. In fact,
the failure of the uniformitarian principle to explain the evidence for creation presented
herein invalidates the basis for the above proof.
Polonium, Dwarf, and Giant Halos in Minerals
Of the three types of unusual halos that appear distinct from those
formed by U and/or Th alpha decay, only the Po halos, Fig.1 (b-d, n-r, r'),
can presently be identified with known alpha radioactivity
Po halos occupy a special niche in my creation model, and these halos will be discussed
in more detail subsequently. Several lines of evidence which indicate the enigmatic dwarf
halos (see Fig. 2) were produced by some presently unidentified radioactivity have been summarized
The rapid etch from HF and the K/Ca inversion are strongly characteristic of
highly radiation-damaged regions.
The characteristics of the giant halos found in a certain Madagascan mica
have also been summarized (1,14,16),
and while no definitive evidence as yet exists for a radioactive origin, some
halos with opaque inclusions in this same mica exhibit isotopic anomalies which
raise questions about the uniformity of U and Th alpha decay. For example, the
mass scans and x-ray fluorescence analyses shown in Fig. 3 clearly indicate that,
whereas both the monazite and opaque inclusions exhibit 206Pb and
207Pb from U decay, the opaque inclusions exhibit a marked deficiency
of 208Pb from 232Th decay (14).
Figure 3. Mass scans and an x-ray fluorescence spectrum of a monazite
and an opaque halo inclusion in Madagascan mica, showing Pb deficiency in the latter.
Secondary Radiohalos in Coalified Wood
All the various types of halos discussed thus far are termed primary halos
because they developed from alpha radioactivity emanating from small accessory
inclusions that were present when the mineral crystallized. But secondary halos
also exist in pieces of coalified wood taken from highly uraniferous deposits
in the Colorado Plateau. There is abundant evidence that U solutions infiltrated
much of the sedimentary material in the geological formations of that region
when the wood was still in a gel-like condition (17). When
U-bearing solutions passed through pieces of wood, certain active sites within
these specimens preferentially collected U, other sites collected rare earth
type elements, and still others Se, Po, and Pb. It is quite significant that the
U halos, which developed around the tiny U-rich sites, are all underdeveloped,
which, on the basis of a uniform decay rate (the rationale for using this assumption
for these specimens will be explained subsequently), suggests only a relatively
short time since U infiltration. Ion microprobe mass scans of these U halo centers
have shown extremely high 238U/206Pb ratios, which, again on
the assumption of a uniform decay rate, is consistent with a U infiltration within
the last several thousand years (17).
Figure 4. Elliptical (compressed) 210Po halos in coalified
wood from the Colorado Plateau. Reproduced from ref. (17)
by permission of the AAAS. (× 250)
Figure 5. Circular 210Po halos in Colorado Plateau coalified wood.
Figure 6. Circular and elliptical 210Po halo in Colorado
Plateau coalified wood. Reproduced from ref. (17) with AAAS
permission. (× 250)
Similar underdeveloped U halos have been found in the coalified wood from
the Chattanooga Shale, and in fact recent ion microprobe analyses show, in
agreement with earlier results (17), that the
238U/206Pb ratios of the U halos in the Colorado
Plateau samples (Eocene, Triassic, and Jurassic) and the Chattanooga Shale
(Devonian) are virtually indistinguishable. These results suggest that
U-infiltration occurred concurrently in all these formations.
Another class of more sharply defined halos was also discovered in the
Colorado Plateau coalified wood specimens (17). The centers
of these halos exhibit a distinct metallic-like reflectance when viewed with
reflected light. Three different varieties of this halo exist: one with a
circular cross section, another with an elliptical cross section with variable
major and minor axes, and a third most unusual one that is actually a dual halo,
being a composite of a circular and an elliptical halo around exactly the same
radio-center (see Figs. 4-6).
Although the elliptical halos differ radically from the circular halos in
minerals, the circular type resembles the 210Po halo in minerals
and variations in the radii of circular halos approximate the calculated
penetrated distances (26 to 31 μm) of the 210Po
alpha particle (energy E = 5.3 MeV) in this coalified wood (17).
Henderson (18) theorized that Po halos might form in
minerals when U-daughter Po isotopes or their alpha precursors were
preferentially accumulated into small inclusions from some nearby U source.
This hypothesis has not been confirmed for the origin of three distinct types
of Po halos in U-poor minerals (1,2,11),
but it does seem to provide a reasonable explanation for the origin of
210Po halos in U-rich coalified wood specimens.
Electron microscope x-ray fluorescence analyses showed these halo centers
were mainly Pb and Se. This composition fits well into the secondary accumulation
hypothesis for both of the U-daughters, 210Po (half-life, t½
= 138 days) and its beta precursor 210Pb (t½ = 22 y),
possess the two characteristics that are vitally essential for the hypothesis:
(i) chemical similarity with the elements in the inclusion and (ii) half-lives
sufficiently long to permit accumulation prior to decay, a requirement related
to the nuclide transport rate.
What is the meaning of the 210Po halos in Figs. 4-6? Clearly, the
variations in shape can be attributed to plastic deformation which occurred prior to
coalification. Since the model for 210Po formation thus envisions that
both 210Po and 210Pb were accumulating simultaneously in
the Pb-Se inclusion, a spherical 210Po halo could develop in 0.5 to
1 year from the 210Po atoms initially present and a second similar
210Po halo could develop in 25 to 50 years as the 210Pb
atoms more slowly beta decayed to produce another crop of 210Po atoms.
If there was no deformation of the matrix between these periods, the two
210Po halos would simply coincide. If, however, the matrix was deformed
between the two periods of halo formation, then the first halo would have been
compressed into an ellipsoid, and the second would be a normal sphere. The result
would be a dual "halo" (Fig. 6). The widespread occurrence of these dual halos
in both Triassic and Jurassic specimens can actually be considered corroborative
evidence for a one-time introduction of U into these formations, because it is
then possible to account for their structure on the basis of a single specifically
timed tectonic event (17).
Halos in Coalified Wood: a Flood-Related Phenonena
A worldwide Flood, which is postulated to have occurred about 1650 years
after creation, is the third singularity in the creation model proposed herein.
I have advanced the hypothesis that the underdeveloped U halos in both the Colorado
Plateau and Chattanooga Shale coalified wood specimens exhibit very high U/Pb
ratios because the uranium infiltration of the wood occurred only when those
geological deposits were being emplaced at the time of the Flood several
thousand years ago, instead of the 60 to 400 millions of years ago accepted by
uniformitarian geology. I suggest at least part of the U-series disequilibria
(19) found in the Colorado Plateau U deposits is because some
U-daughter radionuclide separation occurred at the time of the Flood, and there
has been insufficient time since then to reestablish equilibrium conditions.
The high U/Pb ratios and secondary 210Po halos in the coalified
wood samples from the Eocene epoch and the Triassic and Jurassic periods suggest
to me that the wood in all these formations was in the same gel-like condition
when infiltrated by the U-bearing solutions. To me these data represent evidence
for a concurrent, single-stage invasion of U into all the different geological
formations represented by the coalified wood samples. This is precisely what
would be expected on the basis of a Flood-related phenomena.
The dual Po halos also fit well into the Flood scenario, i.e. the presence
of a spherical and elliptical Po halo around the same radiocenter suggests a
tectonic event occurred within 50 years after the initial infiltration of
uranium into the wood samples. A readjustment of the earth's crust after such
a massive event is not unexpected. Another implication of the existence of
210Po halos in these specimens is that the transformation of the wood
to a semi-coal-like condition must have occurred within a period of about one year.
This evidence for a rapid coalification process is in contrast to the generally
accepted view that coalification is a long-term geological process.
Three Types of Polonium Halos in Minerals
Now there are two other Po isotopes (214Po and 218Po)
in the U decay chain besides 210Po, but no halos representative of
these other Po isotopes have been found in coalified wood. This is not surprising,
because the half-lives of the other Po isotopes are rather short, i.e.,
t½ = 3 m for 218Po and t½ =
164 μs for 214Po as are the half-lives of the beta
precursors of 214Po, i.e. t½ = 26.4 m for
214Pb and t½ = 19.8 m for 214Bi
(the precursor of 218Po is the inert gas 222Rn). What
is surprising is that all the three types of Po halos occur in certain minerals
which typically contain orders of magnitude less uranium than the U-rich
coalified wood. Further, the minerals such as biotite and fluorite must have
diffusion rates considerably lower than those expected for a U-solution-infiltrated
specimens of gel-like wood. Figure 7 shows the idealized structure of the
different Po halos in comparison with the U halo.
Photographic evidence relating to the existence of different types of
Po halos in minerals is shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1(n) shows three 210Po
halos of light, medium, and very dark coloration. The slightly higher radii for the
darker halos is attributable to the higher dose. Figure 1(o) shows three different
210Po halos in fluorite. Figure 1(p) shows a 214Po halo in
biotite, and Fig. 1(q) shows two 218Po halos in biotite. Comparison of
these halos with the idealized ring structure in Fig. 7 shows that Po halos in
minerals can be clearly identified by ring structure studies alone. The data in
shows there is an excellent agreement between the experimentally produced
He ion produced coloration bands and the Po halo ring radii.
An important observation from Fig. 7 is that in the idealized 238U and
218Po patterns, it is evident that the 222Rn ring should be
missing from the 218Po halo and present in the 238U halo.
Figures 8 and 9 show the presence of the 222Rn ring in the U halo in contrast
to its absence in the 218Po halo. This is unequivocal evidence that the
218Po halo initiated with 218Po rather than with any earlier
alpha emitter in the U decay chain. Figures 10 and 11 show 214Po halos
and 218Po halos in different types of biotite.
Henderson's (18) original idea that Po halos in minerals
may have originated from a secondary source of radioactivity encounters formidable
obstacles when closely examined. In most cases the minerals contain only ppm abundances
of uranium, which means only a negligible supply of Po daughter atoms is available
for capture at any given time. To form a halo these daughter atoms must migrate or
diffuse so they can be captured at a collecting site, a problem which is compounded
by the low diffusion rates in minerals
(11,20,21). Despite these
objections, in 1979 several investigators suggested their results (22)
might provide support for secondary Po halo formation in minerals after all. They
were apparently unaware that three years earlier I had reported the experimental
observation of secondary 210Po halos in coalified wood (17).
In that report I discussed how even under the most favorable conditions (i.e.,
an abundant supply of U-daughters in a highly mobile environment) for the formation
of secondary Po halos, only the longer half-life 210Po halos actually
formed, the reason being that the shorter half-life Po isotopes generally decayed
away before they could be captured at the tiny Pb-Se sites. If these other two Po
halo types didn't form under the best conditions in the gel-like wood, how could
it be expected they would form naturally in the granites where diffusion rates are
vastly lower and the supply of Po atoms is negligible?
The identity of U, Th and Po halos in minerals has been confirmed by analyzing
the various types of halo radiocenters using scanning electron microscope x-ray
fluorescence (SEMXRF) and ion microprobe mass spectrometric (IMMA) techniques
(2,3). Studies of various Po halo radiocenters
in biotite and fluorite have generally shown little or no U in conjunction with
anomalously high 206Pb/207Pb and/or Pb/U ratios which
would be expected from the decay of Po without the U precursor which normally
occurs in U radiohalo centers (2,3). These
results were obtained clearly in the analysis (3) of the most
unusual array of Po halos which I ever found. That array, shown in Figure 12,
has the appearance of a pair of spectacles, hence the designation 'Spectacle Halo.'
The Spectacle Halo appearance compounds the problem of explaining its existence
on the basis of known physical laws. In conclusion, in spite of attempts to
define them out of existence (23), there is demonstrable
evidence that Po halos do exist as separate entities (1-3).
Figure 7. Idealized schematic of 238U,
218Po, 214Po, and 210Po halos.
Figure 8. 238U halo in fluorite. (× 535)
Figure 9. 218Po halo in fluorite. (× 535)
Figure 10. 214Po halos in mica. (× 250)
Figure 11. 218Po halos in mica. (× 250)
Figure 12. The Spectacle Halo,
an overlapping series of 210Po halos discovered in a piece of
biotite from the Silver Crater mine, Faraday Township, Ontario.
Reproduced from ref. (3) by permission of Nature. (× 560)
Polonium Halos in Minerals: an Independent Evaluation
Because of the implications which will be attributed to the presence of
Po halos in minerals, it is important that my colleagues be apprised of the
independent investigation of these phenomena by Professor Norman Feather.
In an exhaustive theoretical treatment (24) of the problem
concerning their origin in minerals, Feather concludes it is difficult to account
for the existence of Po halos in certain minerals on the basis of known physical
principles. His exact words, as given in the synopsis of his paper, are as follows:
Ever since the discovery of Po-haloes in old mica (Henderson and Sparks
1939) the problem of their origin has remained essentially unsolved. Two
suggestions have been made (Henderson 1939; Gentry et al. 1973), but neither
carries immediate conviction. These suggestions are examined critically and in detail,
and the difficulties attaching to the acceptance of either are identified. Because
these two suggestions appear to exhaust the logical possibilities of explanation,
it is tempting to admit that one of them must be basically correct, but whoever
would make this admission must be fortified by credulity of a high order.
Polonium Halos and Primordial Rocks: a Test of the Hypothesis
I have advanced the hypothesis (25,26) that
the three different types of Po halos in minerals represent the decay of primordial
Po, in which case the rocks that host these halos, i.e., the Precambrian granites,
must be primordial rocks (25,26). By this reasoning
the Precambrian granites are identified as rocks that were created almost instantly as
a part of the creation event recorded in Genesis 1:1 rather than rocks that are a
product of the evolution of the earth. This rationale would be without scientific
content if I had not also stated (25) that the laboratory synthesis
of a hand-sized piece of granite or biotite would be accepted as falsifying my view
that the Precambrian granites are created rocks and, likewise, that the subsequent
production of 218Po halos in that synthesized specimen of granite or biotite
would be accepted as falsifying my view that Po halos in Precambrian granites originated
with primordial polonium. The only response to my repeated
(25,26) challenges to perform these laboratory
syntheses and falsify the aforementioned evidences for creation has thus far been
silence. It is inescapable that these experiments should be successful if the
uniformitarian principle is true. Thus, with so much at stake for evolution, I suspect
the reason why my evolutionary colleagues have failed to achieve success is because
the Precambrian granites never formed by the uniformitarian principle to begin with;
hence, to attempt to utilize it now to produce a synthesized piece of granite is just
a futile effort. The end result is that the uniformitarian principle is essentially
falsified because of its failure to live up to its own predictions. But since all the
pieces in the evolutionary puzzle are glued together by this principle, we must now
come to the same conclusion about evolution itself.
A Proposed Creation Model and the Age of the Earth
The evidence for creation cited above suggests there may have been special periods
in earth history when physical laws as presently understood were insufficient to
explain all the events transpiring within those periods. This evidence also undergirds
the formulation of a creation model based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. The creation
model proposed herein postulates that on at least three occasions (singularities)
during the past 6000 years there were significant exceptions to the uniformitarian
principle within our local cosmos (the Milky Way), viz., the ex nihilo creation of
our galaxy about 6000 years ago, the Fall of man shortly thereafter, and the
occurrence of a worldwide Flood about 4350 years ago. These ages are derived
from Scriptural chronology. It is assumed that the creative act which brought the
Milky Way into existence also caused the immediate propagation of light throughout
the galaxy. No constraints are placed on the age of the universe.
Singularities and Uniformities: A Complementary Approach
It is essential to understand that uniform action of physical laws
between singularities is an integral part of this creation model.
Moreover, the occurrence of a singularity does not mean a completely
chaotic condition without any laws to govern the operations of nature
during that period. During the Flood singularity some physical processes
may not have changed at all whereas there is evidence others varied
considerably. An enhanced radioactive decay rate during the Flood
singularity would have generated a considerable amount of heat, thus
initiating volcanic and tectonic activity during and after that period.
This three-singularity model appears to be the minimum framework that
includes the essential features of the Genesis narrative. Possibly
the continent-separating episode recorded in Genesis 10:25, when the
earth was divided in the days of Peleg a few hundred years after the
Flood, should also be included as a singularity; certainly it must
figure prominently in any creation-based reconstruction of earth
history that deals with continental drift. However, to simplify
matters, the following comments exclude consideration of this event.
Singularities and the Interpretation of Radioactive Decay as Elapsed Time
In summary, the creation model envisions an initial creation
singularity followed by a short period of uniformity until the
second singularity, an event which involved degenerative changes
in the biological world and quite possibly modification of some
of the original physical laws which governed the earth and our
near celestial environment. Another period of uniformity follows,
with the modified physical laws now in effect, for about 1600 years
down to the longer-duration Flood singularity. The last period of
uniformity extends down to the present. In this scenario U/Pb
ratios are presently utilized as indicators of elapsed time
since the last singularity. 238U/206Pb
ratios are not used as time measures prior to this last singularity
because of conflicting evidence of very high Pb and He retention
in natural zircons subjected to a prolonged high temperature
environment in deep granite. Those results, discussed below,
are consistent with a very young age of the earth, and suggest that
the radioactive decay rate may have been enhanced (indeed, had to
be if this creation model is correct) during any one of the three
singularities. (The Peleg episode potentially adds one more
possibility.) The assumption of uniform decay since the Flood is
the basis for interpreting the very high U/Pb ratios in coalified
wood samples as evidence for a several-thousand-year age of
specimens which conventional geology holds to be about 60 to
400 million years old.
Possible Evidence of Enhanced Radioactive Decay from 'Blasting' Halos
Additional evidence for an enhanced radioactive decay rate comes
from Ramdohr's observations on fractured radioactive halos in
polished ore sections. He reports (27) that certain
radioactive inclusions, which exhibit a considerable volume increase
due to isotropization from radioactive decay, have in numerous cases
been observed to fracture the surrounding mineral in a random pattern.
Ramdohr points out that the surrounding mineral should expand slowly
over geological time due to radioactive isotropization, and individual
cracks should appear as soon as the elastic limit is reached. He further
points out that, while these expansion cracks should occur first along
cohesion minimums and grain boundaries, nothing like this happens.
Individual cracks surrounding the radioactive inclusion are randomly
distributed and evidently occur quite suddenly in the form of an
explosive fracture and not a slow expansion. Ramdohr shows many
photographs of instances wherein the central inclusion fractures
the non-isotropic outer zone. The occurrence of this phenomenon is
While there might be other alternatives, one possible explanation
of these "fractures" or "blasting" halos is that the rate of
radioactive decay was at one time far greater than that observed
today. The isotropization of the host minerals would have occurred
very rapidly due to an anomalous decay rate, and hence fracturing
of the outer mineral would be expected.
The Age of the Earth and Pb Retention in Deep Granite Cores
Results pertaining more specifically to a recent creation of the
earth come from studies of Pb retention in zircons taken from deep
Precambrian granite cores (28). To understand the rationale for this
last statement, it must first be understood that the Pb in these
zircons is primarily a secondary trace component derived from the
decay of small amounts of U and Th. Secondly, this radiogenic Pb
has a tendency to migrate or diffuse out of the zircon crystals far
more rapidly than the parent U and Th because these elements are
relatively tightly bound in lattice sites, whereas the Pb atoms
really do not fit into the zircon lattice. Further, since all elements
show an exponential increase in the bulk diffusion rate with increasing
temperature, and since the temperature in the granite cores increases
significantly from near the top (105°C) to the bottom (313°C)
of the granite portion of the drill hole, calculations show that 50
μm-size zircons taken from the bottom of the drill hole
(313°C) should have lost 1% of their Pb content in about 300,000
years. Since the zircons were in cores taken from a Precambrian
granite that is estimated to be 1.5 billion years old by conventional
geochronology (29), the prediction based on uniformitarian
geochronology would be that most of the Pb would have long ago
diffused out of the zircons extracted from the deepest cores at
313°C. But the results of the experiments did not agree with
this prediction; rather they showed equally high retention of Pb
in zircons taken from all depths. In fact no Pb loss from zircons
at 313°C would appear to place an upper limit to the age of
this Precambrian granite, which, on the presumption that these
granites are primordial rocks, in essence places the same limit
on the age of the earth.
The Age of the Earth: Limited by Helium Retention in Deep Granite Cores
Another approach which seemed to hold greater prospects for more
closely defining an upper limit for the age of these Precambrian granites
(and hence of the earth) was the differential analysis of similar size
zircons from these same cores for helium, the second most volatile
chemical element known. The helium accumulates in these zircons in a
manner similar to the radiogenic Pb, viz., from the alpha particles
emitted from trace amounts of U and Th. However, the extreme volatility
of this gas means that it diffuses out of the zircons at a far greater
rate than Pb. On a purely uniformitarian basis the search for helium in
these zircons would quite possibly never have been done because
conventional geological wisdom suggests negligible helium retention
in zircons subjected to even 100°C for the presumed 1.5 billion year
age (29) of those granites. But having already discovered that the Pb
retention in these zircons contradicted the age estimates determined by
radiometric dating techniques, I decided that, from a creationist
perspective, the search might just reveal something of exceptional interest.
Groups of zircons from six different depths were repeatedly analyzed for
helium using an extremely sensitive gas mass spectrometric system.
The results (30) showed a helium retention of about 58% in the tiny 50
μm zircons from 960 meters depth (105°C), about 27%
in zircons from 2170 meters (151°C) and a phenomenal 17% retention
of helium even at 2900 meters where the temperature is 197° C.
These results show a creation-based perspective of science does possess
predictive capabilities which can be scientifically tested.
It is difficult to understand how such high retention (30) of helium
can be accounted for except by restricting the age of these granites
(and hence the earth) to something of the order of several thousand years.
These results are consistent with an approximate 6000-year age of the earth
and moreover are in direct conflict with the presumed 4.5-billion-year age
of the earth determined by radioactive dating techniques. Evolutionary
colleagues can prove this deduction for a young age of the earth is wrong
if they can show just how this unusually high retention of helium can be
deduced from the accepted 1.5-billion-year age (29) of those zircons by using
only uniformitarian principles.
A Creation Model of the Structure of the Universe
Decades of research in astronomy and cosmology have led to
the general belief that the present state of the universe can
ultimately be traced to an initial event popularly known as the
Big Bang. Despite this popularity it should be remembered that
the Big Bang cosmological model is only as valid as the fundamental
premises which support it. Thus the discussion of the proposed
creation model of the universe must necessarily also focus on
the validity of the Big Bang theory, whose basic framework consists
of the cosmological and uniformitarian principles together with
the general theory of relativity. The previous sections of this
article have documented the failure of the uniformitarian principle
to provide confirmation for the geological evolution of the Precambrian
granites. If this principle cannot account for the evolution
of the earth, is it difficult to understand how it can provide
a rational basis for constructing an evolutionary model of the
universe. It may be argued, however, that the edifice of modern
cosmology fits together too well for there to be something wrong
with basic assumptions. This point will receive close examination
in the following discussion of the hot Big Bang Model
The Big Bang Model and the Hubble Relation
About 50 years ago Hubble proposed that the astronomical data
then available seemed to linearly relate the redshift z of a
galaxy with the distance R to the galaxy, and this has become
known as the Hubble relation. Since then galactic redshifts have
been mainly interpreted as Doppler shifts resulting from high
recessional velocities of the distant galaxies and, moreover,
have been generally thought to provide some of the strongest
evidence for the hot Big Bang model of an expanding universe.
(See, however, Hetherington's evaluation (33) of the Hubble relation.)
The reason for confidence in this interpretation is that by using
the general theory of relativity as the mathematical basis for
calculating the space-time development of the primeval fireball,
it is possible to derive the z ∝R Hubble relation (31,32)
provided certain assumptions are made.
Notwithstanding the general belief that the accumulated astronomical
data do support a z ∝ R relation,
the fact is that over the past two decades several detailed studies
of redshift distributions have been published which call the
Hubble relation into question. As early as 1962 Hawkins (34)
claimed that the redshift data indicated an approximate quadratic-distance
redshift relation, in particular z ∝ R2.22.
More recently the case for a z ∝ R2
relation (for low z) was considerably reinforced by the extensive
statistical analyses of Segal (35) and of Nicoll and Segal (36).
Even though these latter results have been disputed by Sandage
et al. (37), it appears that Nicoll and Segal (38) have responded
with stronger evidence for a z ∝ R2
relation. In fact, Nicoll et al. (39) have gone so far as to
claim statistical invalidation of the Hubble relation for low
values of z. At a minimum the foregoing results make it very
difficult to believe that the redshift data as presently interpreted
actually support the Hubble relation, which is the cornerstone
of Big Bang cosmology.
As noted above, the latest analyses of Nicoll and Segal (38)
show the redshift data more closely fit what is thought to be
the equivalent of a quadratic rather than a linear distance relation.
The reason for qualifying the last statement is because astronomers
measure not distances but apparent magnitudes, which are first
corrected for various factors before being used as a basis for
establishing the magnitude-redshift relation. One important correction
involves the assumption that the galactic light intensity (for
any given frequency interval) as observed on earth is reduced
by two factors of 1 + z, one for the redshift itself, and the other
for the presumed galactic recession. Of course if the galaxies
are not receding, then an unwarranted factor has been introduced
into the magnitude correction procedures, and this would affect
the perceived redshift distributions.
The Big Bang Model and the Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMR)
In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel prize in physics
for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Since then it has been
widely claimed that this pervasive radiation field is a relic
of the time eons ago when radiation quanta decoupled from matter
in the primeval fireball (31). According to this theory, the
decoupling presumably occurred about 300,000 years after the
Big Bang when the primeval fireball had expanded and its temperature
had dropped to the point where matter and radiation ceased to
interact as it had before. After this time, supposedly about
15 billion years ago, it is believed that this radiation propagated
throughout space in an unobstructed fashion to eventually become
the CMR. It is essential to note that the radiation leaving the
primeval fireball at the time of decoupling was presumably still
quite hot (about 3000°K). The experimental measurements of
the CMR temperature at present reveal that it is very cold (3°K).
But if the radiation from the primeval fireball is assumed not
to interact with matter after the time of decoupling, then how
did this initially hot radiation lose its energy, or temperature,
to later become the 3°K CMR? The standard explanation
is that the general relativistic analysis of the space-time expansion
of the primeval fireball predicts that the decoupled radiation
quanta will lose energy just as a result of the expansion of
the universe. There is, however, nothing in modern experimental
physics which suggests that radiation quanta change energy by
moving through free space. Thus, the standard explanation
for this remarkable thousand-fold energy loss in the decoupled
radiation quanta depends upon an aspect of general relativity
that is unsupported by scientific evidence.
To avoid possible misunderstandings, some recent experimental
results of gravitational effects on photons will be discussed.
Einstein's principle of equivalence, which is independent of
general relativity, does not distinguish whether a photon traversing
a gravitational potential gradient undergoes a change in energy
in transit, or whether its energy is uniquely determined by the
gravitational potential at the point of emission. The earliest
Mossbauer experiments (40) on the gravitational redshift could
not distinguish between these two alternatives, and it was widely
believed that the photon energy could change when passing through
a difference in gravitational potential. But recent experimental
results (41) suggest the photon energy is characterized by the
gravitational potential at the point of emission rather than
varying as the photon moves to a different potential. In the
light of these results it is quite difficult for me to believe
that radiation quanta can undergo energy loss in free space as
predicted in the general relativistic Big Bang model. At this
point my views on the theory of relativity need to be clarified.
I recognize there are some notable experimental results in
physics such as apparent time dilation, the transverse Doppler
effect, the increase in mass with velocity, and the gravitational
bending of light, which are in accord with the predictions of
the theory of relativity. However, these experimental results
cannot be used as confirmations of the special or general theory
of relativity because there are other (albeit far lesser known)
theories which predict similar results. (See for instance North's
(42) review of various alternative theories of gravitation and
their predictions.) Further, recently Rastall (43) and especially
Marinov (44) have shown independently that it is not necessary
to assume the general relativistic framework to obtain many of
the same mathematical results. On the other hand, the question
of whether the Big Bang model is a correct description of the
origin and evolutionary development of the universe is entirely
hinged on the ultimate validity of general relativity's fundamental
postulate, which in principle denies that privileged reference
frames exist. Very germane to this discussion is the recent
admission (45) of an eminent physicist to the effect that the
CMR presents undeniable experimental evidence for the existence
of an absolute reference frame in the universe, a result which
is consistent with Marinov's (44) evidence for absolute space-time
and also with at least one of the earlier gravitational theories
reviewed by North (42). This point is treated in more detail
subsequently and it is shown that the existence of the CMR as
an absolute reference frame is perhaps the most important evidence
that can be adduced for the creation model of the universe as
proposed herein. Before engaging in this discussion further,
it is necessary to complete the present discussion of the CMR
and the Cosmological Principle.
Measurements have shown the spatial distribution of the CMR
is so uniform that it is questionable whether it could have been
produced by the Big Bang scenario as it was originally conceived.
Weisskopf (45) has recently reviewed the nature of this and other
problems with the Big Bang model, and has discussed the provisional
solutions offered by postulating an explosive expansion in the
very early stages of the Big Bang. Questions still remain, however,
not the least being that the entire scenario assumes some type
of grand unification theory which has yet to be verified. But
is it consistent for cosmologists on one hand to claim that the
universe evolved only through the action of known physical laws
and on the other hand to devise solutions to cosmological problems
by using unverified hypotheses as a basis for those solutions?
We have already noted the failure of the uniformitarian principle
to successfully account for the origin of Po halos in Precambrian
granites, or to provide a basis for synthesis of a piece of granite.
In a similar manner it seems the introduction of unverified
physical concepts as the basis for possible solutions to difficult
evolutionary cosmological problems is just the inevitable result
of the failure to explain the creation of the universe on the
basis of the uniformitarian principle. In any event, the newly
proposed expansionary modification to the Big Bang only deals
with the earliest instants of the Big Bang, after which it is
supposed the expansion of the primeval fireball continues as
envisioned in the original Big Bang model. As we shall soon
see, it appears there may be a contradiction involved in the
theoretical development of expansion of the fireball.
The Big Bang Model and the Cosmological Principle
In spite of the foregoing difficulties it might still be argued
that Big Bang model must be correct because it predicts a universe
in accord with the Cosmological Principle, viz., that the universe
appears the same irrespective of the location of the observer
in the universe. The problem with this argument is that we really
do not know the Cosmological Principle is true. In fact, all
that we know is that the large scale structure of the universe
appears to be approximately isotropic (i.e., the same in all
directions) from our present point of observation. Modern cosmology
justifies the Cosmological Principle by coupling the observation
of isotropy about our position with the assumption that our galaxy
does not occupy a special position in the universe. That is,
if our galaxy occupies a non-specific or arbitrary position in
the universe, then it follows the universe must be isotropic
everywhere and hence homogeneous as well.
But what if our galaxy does occupy a privileged position in
the universe? First, it would no longer be logical to extrapolate
the isotropy which we observe to the other parts of the universe,
which means it would no longer be possible to justify either
the condition of homogeneity or the cosmological principle. Second,
the simplest deduction of the observed isotropy of the universe
from our location is that the universe must be spherically symmetric
about either the Milky Way or some point which is astronomically
nearby. But spherical symmetry about any point in the universe
implies that point is the Center, and this brings us to the discussion
of the creation model.
A Creation Model of the Universe: The Fundamental Postulate
The fundamental premise of the Judeo-Christian creation model
of the universe is determined by the scripture, "The Lord has
established His throne in the heavens, and His kingdom ruleth
over all." Psalm 103:19 (RSV). On the basis of this statement
it is evident that the Creator has established, or fixed, His
throne at some point in the universe, which in my view is none
other than the Center of the universe. It is axiomatic that a
fixed point in the universe requires the existence of a fixed
or absolute reference frame. Previously it was noted that the
CMR has been recognized as establishing an absolute reference
frame (45); so it is quite clear that the fundamental postulate
of this creation model of the universe is based on tangible scientific
The Revolving Steady State Model of the Universe: A Brief
Assuming there is a Center (C) to the universe, I propose
that the galaxies are not receding from each other as presently
supposed, but instead are revolving at different distances and
at different tangential speeds around C. On this basis all galaxies
must have a tangential velocity around C. Measurements have shown
that our solar system, and hence the Milky Way, has a cosmic
velocity through the CMR (46), and it is this velocity which
is identified with the tangential velocity of the Milky Way around
C. In this view C must lie somewhere in that plane which passes
through the MW which is also perpendicular to the cosmic velocity
vector of the MW. It is evident that the RSS model pictures the
galaxies orbiting C in any one of many different-sized concentric
shells which suggests the alternate designation 'Shell Model
of the Universe.'
As originally conceived this Revolving Steady State (RSS)
model envisions a universe with galaxies which move in circular
orbits under the gravitational field produced by all of them.
The field is assumed to be stationary and spherically symmetric.
Decades ago Einstein made a general relativity study (47) of
circulating particles constrained by this type of gravitational
field, but his analysis did not mention redshifts, nor was there
any hint that he considered his analysis had any reference to
the structure of the universe.
The RSS Model and Galactic Redshifts
Assuming the galaxies are revolving in different orbital planes
and with different tangential velocities v around some universal
center C, initially I thought that if the Milky Way was one of
the innermost galaxies, then most of the galactic redshifts as
observed on earth might be due to a combination of gravitational
and transverse Doppler effects. (A literature search showed that
Burcev (48) had proposed over a decade ago that quasars were
possibly stellar objects whose redshifts might be attributable
to the transverse Doppler effect.)
Although questions have arisen about this explanation for
the galactic redshifts in the RSS model, it seems worthwhile
to explain my original rationale and the objections which now
appear to present themselves. In particular, in the Newtonian-based
RSS model the galaxies of mass m and tangential velocity v remain
in circular orbits by gravitational attraction of the total mass
M within the sphere of orbital radius R. In this scenario, mv2/R
= mMG/R2, or v2 = GM/R, where G is the
gravitational constant. Thus an observer on an innermost galaxy
located at a distance R1 from C would in theory see
light from a more distant galaxy (at R2 from C) shifted
in frequency because of the transverse Doppler effect and the
change in gravitational potential V(R) = −GM/R. The presumed
limiting distance R' at which galaxies could remain in stable
orbits would be when the tangential velocity v = c, the velocity
of light. Beyond this presumed galactic cutoff distance the RSS
model tentatively assumes a rapidly diminishing mass/energy density
so that we do not encounter an infinite gravitational potential
(see discussion of equations (2) and (3) for more details).
The frequency shifts expected in the RSS model can be compared
to an earth-bound observer comparing the frequency of a light
signal emitted from his position on the rotating earth's surface,
where the tangential velocity is v1, and the gravitational
is V1, with the frequency of the same signal emitted
from an overhead satellite which is orbiting with velocity
v2 in a gravitational potential V2. The
experimentally confirmed (41) equation for the redshift, as derived
from the principle of equivalence, is:
z = (V1 − V2) / c2 − (v12 − v22) / 2c2.
The same equation applies in the RSS model except that v1
and V1 are the cosmic velocity and gravitational potential
of the Milky Way at R1 from C whereas v2
and V2 represent the same quantities for a more distant
galaxy at R2 from C.
Another source of frequency shifts arises because the Milky
Way (MW) is not exactly at C. In this case the more distant galaxies,
which are rotating away from or toward the MW, produce first
order Doppler redshifts or blueshifts. The blueshifts, which
would be most pronounced for nearby galaxies, can be eliminated
for all practical purposes if it is assumed that the more distant
galaxies are rotating away from the MW. This scenario would result
in a recessional redshift which, because it depends on the cosine
of the angle between the velocity vector of the outer galaxy
and the line of sight from the MW to that galaxy, would diminish
with distance. Thus, of itself this redshift could at most be
only a part of the total galactic redshift observed on the earth.
Of course, a significant distance-related redshift, irrespective
of its origin, could overshadow most blueshifts expected from
galaxies rotating toward the MW and eliminate the need for assuming
rotation away from the MW.
We now return to the discussion of the redshifts expected
on the basis of eq. (1). If the ρ,
the mass/energy density of the universe is assumed to be constant
then M = 4 πρ R3/3,
and substitution of the appropriate quantities into eq. (1) leads
to the formal result that z is proportional to R2,
which is of the same form of the redshift relation proposed
in references (33,34,37-39).
On a similar basis, if the density
is assumed to vary inversely as R, then one can obtain an expression
for z which is proportional to R, which is of the same form as
the Hubble relation (49).
Of course, astronomers measure apparent magnitudes, not distances,
and, for there to be a quantitative comparison between the above
results and the redshift distribution, the light flux relation
for the RSS model must be formulated so as to include the combined
effect of the redshift and gravitational focusing. This formulation
has yet to be done; thus on this basis alone it would be premature
to claim the forgoing results are consistent with the galactic
redshift relation proposed by Nicoll and Segal (38). Moreover
it should be remembered that if the universe is revolving, then
an extraneous factor has been included into the data which comprise
the redshift distribution, and this would preclude any immediate
comparison. But regardless of the outcome of the above calculations,
there seems to be a more fundamental objection to the preceding
In particular, we must carefully investigate whether the gravitational
potential V = −GM/R used in the above calculations is the correct
expression for the potential function. It is of crucial importance
to know whether it is correct for it is used as the basis for
the derivation of the Hubble relation (31,32) in Big Bang cosmology.
According to Silk (31) and Weinberg (32), its use in computing
the potential at the surface of an arbitrarily large, but finite
sphere, of radius R within an infinite universe is justified
by a theorem due to Birkhoff. Part of the proof of this theorem
implicitly assumes that the universe is structured according
to the Cosmological Principle. Now the creation model of the
universe proposed herein is also of infinite extent, but the
Cosmological Principle does not hold, so that there is no basic
reason why this theorem should yield the correct gravitational
potential in the RSS model. But should it hold for the Big Bang
To answer this question we first note that the negative gradient
of the potential V = −GM/R yields a repulsive force per unit
mass F/m = GM/R2 whereas there is an experimentally
confirmed theorem in classical mechanics which definitely requires
an attractive force per unit mass F/m = −GM/R2 to
exist at any point R within a sphere enclosing a uniform mass
distribution. This latter result is an integral part of both
the RSS and the Big Bang models. Thus the potential V = −GM/R
is just as wrong for the Big Bang model as it would be for the
RSS model because it yields an incorrect sign for the force.
Even Silk's (31) elementary treatment (see page 332) makes it
clear that the derivation of the Friedmann equation for the Big
Bang expanding universe is based on the potential V = −GM/R.
Here we have a logical contradiction in the theoretical development
of the primeval fireball, which is of course the basis for predicting
the Hubble relation in the Big Bang.
An expression for the potential (50,51)
which does yield the correct attractive force is given by
V(R) = −GM/R
− G ∫R∞ 4 πρ r dr
where M = 4π ∫oR ρr2dr.
The problem here is that for a finite, uniform density we
encounter an infinite potential due to the presumed infinite
size of the universe. This result is the same for both the Big
Bang model and the RSS model.
Alternatively, a finite potential can be obtained from eq.
(2) by assuming the density diminishes more rapidly than 1/R3
after R', where v = c. As a first approximation this assumption
truncates the potential at R'. In this case the upper integration
limits in eq. (2) must be changed from infinity to R', and we
have the following potential:
V(R) = −GM/R
− G ∫RR' 4 πρ r dr
where M is defined in eq. (2).
If this potential is used in eq. (1) to compute z for
the RSS model, then for a uniform density for all R less than
R', we find the redshift is zero. If, however, the density increases
as R0.22 then we can formally obtain a relation (51)
similar to that deduced by Hawkins (34). Again, however, it is
premature to make any claims about this result until more work
Another possibility for obtaining redshifts in the RSS model
is to assume the mass/energy density diminishes as 1/R4.
In this case the galactic orbits are no longer circular but
spirals, and there is a recessional component to the velocity
which leads to a first order Doppler shift and a Hubble type
z ∝ R relation. For this view to
have any credibility most of the mass/energy of the universe
must be in a form other than the matter and radiation energy
presently observed and/or inferred in stellar systems and intergalactic
dust. In this context it is perhaps worth mentioning that Ellis
(52) has proposed that there may be a large amount of undetected
mass/energy in other forms (e.g., neutrinos) which could raise
the cosmic mass/energy density to more than a million times the
present density estimates of 10−31to 10−29g/cm3.
Of course the RSS model does not require that the redshifts
are velocity dependent. In this respect it is well known that
years ago proponents of a static or steady state universe proposed
a variety of distance-dependent interpretations of the redshift
which were non-recessional in nature (see North's (42) review
for details and references). The investigation of the origin
of the redshifts in the RSS model should include a reexamination
of these alternatives.
Estimates of the Distance from the Milky Way to the Center
Earlier it was implied that the Milky Way could be one of
the innermost galaxies in the RSS model. This view is based on
the assumption that the Milky Way's cosmic galactic velocity
of 550 km/s through the CMR (46) is just the tangential velocity
of the Milky Way (MW) around C. Galactic peculiar motions may
also be of the same nature. On this basis we can compute the
angular velocity ω of the
MW around C from v2 = ω2R2
= GM/R, which leads to the result that ω = 2(πρG/3)½.
For a constant ρ = 10−29g/cm3, then ω
= 5 × 10−11 rad/y, and the distance from C to our
galaxy would be about 3.7 × 107 light-years. (C of
course would be located somewhere in the plane perpendicular
to the direction of the motion of the MW through the CMR.) If
ρ = 10−27g/cm3
then ω = 5 × 10−10
rad/y (or 5 × 10−5 arc-s/y), which means that differential
angular motions of the more distant galaxies (as observed at
the MW) would still be below the present detection limit of light
telescopes (≃10−3 arc-s/y).
In the latter case the distance from the MW to C is about 3.7
× lO6 light-years and is considered the preferred
value so as reduce potential blueshift effects. This distance
places C outside our galaxy but still in the plane which
is perpendicular to the MW's cosmic velocity vector. No observational
data as yet seems to locate the direction of C in that plane.
On the other hand Orion is in that plane, and is prominently
mentioned in Scripture (Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8). As a working
hypothesis I suggest that C may lie a few million light years
beyond Orion. One density used in the preceding calculations
is higher than current estimates but, as previously noted, Ellis
(52) has suggested there may be a large amount of undetected
mass/energy which may raise the value to more than 10−24
g/cm3. On this basis the higher density
estimate is not unreasonable. In the RSS model the value of
the density cannot much exceed 10−26
g/cm3 or else the angular velocity will increase to
the point where differential motions of distant galaxies would
The RSS Model and Olber's Paradox
We briefly digress to note that Olber's Paradox is resolved
if the universe is structured according to the RSS model because
the finite number of galaxies within a sphere of radius R' will
only produce a finite light flux at the Milky Way. Even if there
is luminous matter beyond R', the density is assumed to diminish
so rapidly that the light flux received at the Milky Way from
beyond R' will also be finite.
The RSS Model and Varshni's Analysis of Quasar Redshifts
In the context of the present proposal for the structure of
the universe it is most appropriate to refer to Varshni's
(53) investigation of the redshift distribution
of 384 quasars. From a probability analysis of those 384 quasars
he found an astounding 57 sets of redshift coincidences within
small redshift intervals. Varshni calculates the probability of
chance coincidence of these groups to be about 10−85.
He concludes that if quasar redshifts are real (he thinks they
are not) and are of cosmological origin (i.e., distance related),
then the only logical deduction from the data is, in his own
words, as follows:
The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe.
The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is
only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear
if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that
the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies
that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred
frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the
Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned
for cosmological purposes.
These deductions are amazingly similar to the deductions
of the RSS model except that, first, the earth, or MW, is
only astronomically close to rather than being exactly at the
Center, and, second, the absolute reference frame is defined
by the CMR and not the position of the earth. And from earlier
discussions in this article, it should now be clear that the
special and the general theory of relativity are not credible
theories in the RSS model. In fact, as shown below, if anything
it now appears that the results of one of the most celebrated
experiments in the history of physics contradict the basic
premises of both special and general relativity so directly
that, to me at least, it seems these theories are no longer
tenable. As noted earlier, however, just because special and
general relativity are shown to be untenable does not invalidate
all the mathematical results obtained by these theories. It
suggests rather that there must exist an absolute space-time
framework which would encompass all the results of relativity
which do accord with experiment, but different results where
relativity theory makes incorrect predictions. Several
investigations pertaining to this alternative framework have
already been cited (42-44).
In addition we should also mention Clube's (54)
work and his exchanges with others (55) on
The RSS Model, the CMR, and the Theory of Relativity
Clube's (54) explanation for the CMR is
undergirded by the assumption of a non-relativistic Lorentz
invariant material vacuum. It is intriguing to consider that
the CMR may be the result of emissions from a cold material
vacuum. On a related matter, Clube cites other work (56)
as evidence that observations are not at all inconsistent with
an essentially Euclidean infinite cosmos. Certainly these ideas
appear easily reconcilable with the RSS model since they assume
the existence of an absolute reference frame. However, the
details of Clube's theory have yet to be worked out so it is
premature to make any claims until further work is done. Of
course there is also the possibility that the CMR may be a part
of the 'light' that was created in Gen. 1:3. Interestingly, Weisskopf
(45) alludes to that very possibility in the
closing paragraph of his recent article:
Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition describes the
beginning of the world in a way that is surprisingly similar to
the scientific model. Previously, it seemed scientifically unsound
to have light created before the sun. The present scientific view
does indeed assume the early universe to be filled with various
kinds of radiation long before the sun was created. The Bible
says about the beginning: "And God said, 'Let there be light';
and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good."
Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about
the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute
reference frame in the universe, a very necessary condition in the
RSS model, but an inconsistent condition for the relativistic foundations
of the Big Bang model. To explicitly show exactly how this inconsistency
arises, it is most helpful to include another quote from Weisskopf's recent article:
It is remarkable that we now are justified in talking about an
absolute motion, and that we can measure it. The great dream of
Michelson and Morley is realized. They wanted to measure the absolute
motion of the earth by measuring the velocity of light in different
directions. According to Einstein, however, this velocity is always
the same. But the 3K radiation represents a fixed system of coordinates.
It makes sense to say that an observer is at rest in an absolute sense
when the 3K radiation appears to have the same frequencies in all
directions. Nature has provided an absolute frame of reference. The
deeper significance of this concept is not yet clear.
With all due respect to my eminent colleague I suggest the meaning of
this fact is not obscure at all. I suggest the evidence (the CMR) which
has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is in
reality its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence
of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory
of relativity. The logic is quite straightforward. Referring to the last
quotation by Weisskopf, we note he mentions the famed Michelson-Morley
experiment, which achieved only a null result.
Lorentz's efforts to explain this null result on the basis of an absolute
reference frame were supposedly untenable. The real explanation, according
to almost every physics textbook written in the past 60 years, was given
by the theory of relativity, namely that: Given the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, if the fundamental principles of relativity are true,
then there is no absolute reference frame. But the CMR is an absolute
reference frame, so the original relativistic deductions about the
Michelson-Morley experiment are in error. More precisely, since logic
requires the contrapositive of a statement to be equivalent to the statement
itself, the preceding "if relativity is true, then no absolute reference frame"
statement must be equivalent to "if an absolute reference frame exists, then
the fundamental principles of relativity are untrue." In simpler terms
the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of
the theory is now known to be contradicted by an unambiguous experimental result.
Without relativity theory there is no Big Bang, no Hubble relation for the
redshift, and no explanation for the CMR in an evolutionary cosmological model.
Acknowledgments, Reflections, and Conclusions
Special thanks goes to Drs. Frank Awbrey and Bill Thwaites, Biology
Department, San Diego State University, for extending to me the opportunity
of participating in this symposium, and for their understanding and
patience during the revision of this contribution. Special thanks also to
Dr. Alan Leviton, Director, Pacific Division of the AAAS, who very kindly
undertook the task of translating my computer disks into a finished manuscript.
Several years ago the American Physical Society sent its members a copy
of the National Academy of Sciences resolution of April 1976, "An Affirmation
of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression," which reads in part ". . .
That the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe
and of the living things that inhabit it should be conducted under conditions
of intellectual freedom, without religious political or ideological restrictions.
. . . That freedom of inquiry and dissemination of ideas require
that those so engaged be free to search where their inquiry leads . . .
without political censorship and without fear of retribution in consequence
of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who challenge existing theory
must be protected from retaliatory reactions."
In recent years the lofty aim of that resolution has not been realized
as I have tried to pursue my research. In my opinion some of my more
influential colleagues have found it easier to support this NAS resolution
for foreign dissident scientists than for an American scientist who dissents
from evolution. In fact I read in a recent issue of Science (57)
that the NAS itself has recently stepped up its anti-creation campaign by the
widespread distribution of a publication which claims that creationism is not
science. I will present the opposite viewpoint in my forthcoming book (58)
while also relating some details concerning my difficulties in pursuing research
in this somewhat controversial field. The impact of aforementioned NAS resolution
on my research efforts receives special attention.
In closing I wish to express my gratitude to those of my evolutionary
colleagues who on so many occasions have assisted me, and on other occasions
have collaborated with me in my research. Of one thing I am certain: Only
in America could my research over the past two decades have been accomplished.
I close by expressing gratitude to my Creator for allowing me the privilege
of being an American. I submit this article to the scientific community not
as an antagonist who purports to have the last word on the subject, but as
a colleague who, in the spirit of free scientific inquiry, genuinely seeks
a vigorous, critical response to the evidence presented herein. Perhaps a
future "Evolutionists Confront Creationists" AAAS symposium would be the
ideal forum for this exchange to occur.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1973.
Annual Rev. Nucl.
Sci. 23: 347.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1974. Science 184: 62.
- Gentry, Robert V. et al. 1974. Nature 252:
- Joly, J. 1917. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London
Ser. A. 217: 51-79; Idem. 1917. Nature 99: 457-58, 476-78; Idem.
1923. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 102: 682-705; Idem. 1924.
Nature 114: 160-64.
- Kerr-Lawson, D. E. 1928. Univ. Toronto Stud.
Geol. Ser. No. 27:15
- Henderson, G. H., C. M. Mushkat, D. P. Crawford.
1934. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 158: 199.
- Henderson, G. H., and L. G. Turnbull. 1934.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 145: 582.
- Henderson, G. H., and S. Bateson. Ibid.,
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 145: 573.
- Schilling, A., 1926. Neues Jahrb. Mineral.
Abh. 53A: 241. See also Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. Rep. ORNL-tr-697.
- Mahadevan, C., 1927. Indian J. Phys. 1: 445.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1968.
Science 160: 1228.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1971.
Science 173: 727.
- Gentry, Robert V. et al. 1973.
Nature 244: 282.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1978.
Are Any Unusual
Radiohalos Evidence for SHE? In Proc. International Symposium
on Superheavy Elements. Lubbock, March 1978. Pergamon Press,
New York, Oxford.
- Gentry, R. V., W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith,
J. W. Boyle, S. S. Cristy, & J. F. McLaughlin. 1978.
Nature 274: 457.
- Gentry, R. V. 1970.
Science 169: 670.
- Gentry, R. V., W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith,
J. E. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. W. Walker, S. S. Cristy, &
P. A. Gentry. 1976.
Science 194: 315.
- Henderson, G. H. and F. W. Sparks 1939.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 173: 238. Henderson,
G. H., ibid., p. 250.
- Lind, S. C., and C. P. Whittemore. 1915.
U.S. Bur. Mines Tech. Pap. 88:1. Stern, T. W., and L. R. Stieff,
1959. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 320:151. Rosholt, J. N., 1958.
In Proceedings of the Second U.N. International Conference
on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva. United Nations,
New York, vol. 2, p. 321.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1975.
Nature 258: 269.
- Fremlin, J. H. 1975. Nature 258: 269.
- Hashemi-Nezhad, S. R., et al., 1979. Nature:
- Moazed, C., R. M. Spector, and R. F. Ward.
1973. Science 180: 1272.
- Feather, N. 1978. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Commun.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1979.
EOS 60: 474. Idem.
1980. EOS 61: 514.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1982. Physics Today 35:
No. 10, 13. Ibid., 36: No. 4, 13.
- Ramdohr. P. 1957. Abb. der Deutsch. Adad.
d. Wiss., Berlin, Kl. f. Chem., Geol. u. Biologie, no. 2: 1.
See also Oak Ridge National Laboratory Translation (ORNL-tr-755).
- Gentry, Robert V., T. J. Sworski, H. S.
McKown, D. H. Smith, R. E. Eby, W. H. Cristie. 1982.
Science 216: 296.
See also R. V. Gentry. 1984. Science 223: 835.
- Zartman, R. E. 1979. Los Alamos Sci. Lab.
- Gentry, R. V., G. Glish, & E. R. McBay.
1982. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9:1129.
- Silk, J. 1979. The Big Bang. W. H. Freeman
& Co., San Francisco.
- Weinberg, S. 1972. Gravitation and Cosmology.
Wiley, New York.
- Hetherington, Norriss. 1971. Astron. Soc.
of the Pacific, Leaflet No. 509, November.
- Hawkins, G. S. 1962. Nature 194: 563.
- Segal, I. E. 1976. Mathematical Cosmology
and Extragalactic Astronomy. Academic Press. Idem. 1975. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 72: 2473.
- Nicoll, J. F. and I. E. Segal. 1975. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 72: 4691.
- Sandage, A., G. A. Tammann, and A. Yahil.
1979. Ap. J. 232: 352.
- Nicoll, J. F. and I. E. Segal. 1982. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 79: 3913. Idem. 1982. Ap. J. 258: 457. Idem.
1982. Astron. & Astrophys. 115: 398. See also Segal, I. E.
1982. Ap. J. 252: 37.
- Nicoll, J. F. et al. 1980. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 77: 6275.
- Pound, R. V. and J. L. Snider. 1964. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 13: 539. Idem. 1965. Phys. Rev. 140: B788.
- Alley, C. 0. 1982. Proper Time Experiments
in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser
Light Pulses. In Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation,
and Measurement Theory. Edited by P. Meystre and M. 0. Scully,
Plenum Pub. Corp., New York.
- North, J. D. 1965. The Measure of the Universe,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- Rastall, P. 1978. Astrophys. J. 22: 745.
Idem. 1979. Can. J. Phys. 57: 944.
- Marinov, S. 1981. Eppur Si Muove. East
West Publishers, Graz, Austria.
- Weisskopf, V. F. 1983. Am. Sci. 71, No.
- Smoot, G. F. et al. 1977. Phys. Rev. Lett.
39: 898. Idem. 1979. Ap. J. 234: L83.
- Einstein, A. 1939. Ann. Math. 40: 922.
- Burcev, P. 1968. Phys. Lett. 27A: 623.
- Gentry, R. V. 1983. Bull. of the Am. Phys.
Soc. 28: 30.
- Landsberg, P. T. and D. A. Evans. 1979.
Mathematical Cosmology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- Gentry, R. V. 1983. Phys. Today 36, No.
- Ellis, G.F.R. et al. 1978. Mon. Not. R.
Astr.Soc. 184: 439.
- Varshni, Y. P. 1976. Astrophys. Space Sci.
43: 3. 1977. Ibid. 51: 121.
- Clube, S.V.M. 1980. Mon. Not. R. Astr.
Soc. 193: 385. Idem. 1982. Proceedings of an International Colloquium
on the Scientific Aspects of the Hipparcos Mission, Strasbourg,
France (ESA SP-177).
- Clube, S.V.M. et al. 1980. Comm. R. Observatory,
Edinburgh, No. 383: 467.
- Jaakkola, T., M. Moles & J. P. Vigier.
1979. Astr. Na. 300:229.
- Holden, C. 1984. Science 223: 1274.
- Gentry, Robert V. 1984. Creation's Tiny
Mystery (to be published).