PROCEEDINGS OF THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CREATIONISM JULY 16—19, 2023 CEDARVILLE, OHIO USA Edited by John H. Whitmore © Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism Cedarville, Ohio, USA 9th 2023 9th 2023 The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Cedarville University.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Arranged by presentation type, then alphabetically by discipline, and then by author) PREFACE J.H. Whitmore (editor)................................................................................................................................................................vi ASTRONOMY PAPERS How should creationists be responding to dark matter and dark energy D.R. Faulkner...............................................................................................................................................................................1 Craters and cracks caused by accelerated nuclear decay heat throughout the solar system D. Stenberg.................................................................................................................................................................................11 BIBLE STUDIES AND PHILOSOPHY PAPERS Human history from Adam to Abraham: Integrating paleoanthropology with a Young-Age Creation perspective M. Ross, P.S. Brummel, and T.C. Wood...................................................................................................................................66 Essentialism and the human kind, or experiments in character weighting T.C. Wood..................................................................................................................................................................................88 BIOLOGY PAPERS Testing the cavefish model: an organism-focused theory of biological design M.J. Boyle, S. Arledge, B. Thomas, J.P. Tomkins, and R.J. Guiluzza...............................................................................120 A preliminary evaluation of ape baramins P.S. Brummel, and T.C. Wood...............................................................................................................................................144 Genealogical vs phylogenic mutation rates: Answering a challenge R.W. Carter.............................................................................................................................................................................168 Molecular baraminology of marine and freshwater fish M. Cserhati..............................................................................................................................................................................181 Allometric and metabolic scaling: Arguments for design…and clues to explaining pre-Flood longevity? L. Hebert.................................................................................................................................................................................206 A creation model of design: Applications of an interface systems model in key global symbiotic relationships T. Hennigan, R. Guliuzza, M. Ingle, and G. Lansdell..........................................................................................................228 A review of CRS eKINDS predictive success and known genetic mechanisms affecting the prevalence of alleles in a population: Meiotic drive as a compiling explanation for patterns attributed to natural selection J.K. Lightner...........................................................................................................................................................................242 Hominin baraminology reconsidered with postcranial characters T.C. Wood, and P.S. Brummel...............................................................................................................................................251 ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS PAPERS A rapid Ice Age and transition to ice sheet growth S.M. Gollmer...........................................................................................................................................................................267 Cause of large post-Flood jump in earths carbon-14 D.R. Humphreys.....................................................................................................................................................................280 Human brain function above all other and the creation model J.D. Johansen..........................................................................................................................................................................288 Language, coded instructions and the interaction with thermodynamics A.C. McIntosh.........................................................................................................................................................................316 Tapping the hourglass: Disequilibrium relaxation following accelerated nuclear decay N. Mogk...................................................................................................................................................................................327
iii GEOLOGY PAPERS Shoreline transgressive terraces: Tufa-encrusted landformsIndicate rapid filling and failure of Hopi Lake, western Bidahochi Basin, northeastern Arizona S.A. Austin, E.W. Holroyd III, T.F. Folks, and N. Loper.....................................................................................................346 The role of large tsunamis in the in the formation of the Flood sediment record J. Baumgardner, and E. Navarro..........................................................................................................................................363 How often do radioisotope ages agree? A preliminary study of 29,000 radioisotope ages in the usgs national geochronological database M.D. Beachy, B.R. Kinard, and P.A. Garner........................................................................................................................387 A Progressive Global Flood Model Confirmed by Rock Data Across Five Continents T.L. Clarey and D.J. Werner.................................................................................................................................................412 Receding Noahic Flood waters led to seafloor spreading: A proposed geological model H. Dickens................................................................................................................................................................................446 Testing the order of the fossil record: Preliminary observations on stratigraphic-clade congruence and its implications for models of evolution and creation K. McGuire, S. Southerden, K. Beebe, N. Doran, T.C. Wood, and P.A. Garner...............................................................478 A Preliminary analysis of archosauromorph baraminology M.A. McLain, C. Clausen, T. Perez, K. Beebe, and A. Ahten............................................................................................487 Radiohalos through earth history- What clues can they provide us? A.A. Snelling............................................................................................................................................................................540 Developing a comprehensive model of global Flood paleontology: Integrating the biostratigraphic record with global megasequence deposition J.P. Tomkins, and T.L. Clarey.................................................................................................................................................561 Can sandstone cross-bed dip inclinations determine depositional environment? J.H. Whitmore.........................................................................................................................................................................588 What biostratigraphic continuity suggests about earth’s history K.P. Wise, and D. Richardson.................................................................................................................................................611 ASTRONOMY ABSTRACTS Four comets of 2020 are first returning ice bodies from the wave which brought water to earth at the time of Noah’s Flood T. Holt......................................................................................................................................................................................626 Expansion of the cosmic fabric model to the inelastic case C. Ward, M.F. Horstemeyer, and T.G. Tenev........................................................................................................................627 ARCHAEOLOGY ABSTRACTS Why ancient worldwide pyramid complexes support the biblical babel account A. Habermehl..........................................................................................................................................................................628 The place of radiocarbon dating in a young earth framework D. Petrovich.............................................................................................................................................................................629 BIBLE, EDUCATION, LAW, AND PHILOSOPHY ABSTRACTS That the Book of Job describes events prior to Abraham and coincides with the end of the Ice Age D.S Bolls...................................................................................................................................................................................630 CreationeeringTM: A K-12 educational system that integrates engineering-business from a biblical perspective M.F. Horstemeyer....................................................................................................................................................................631 A mathematical description of the Christian God M.F. Horstemeyer....................................................................................................................................................................632 Holy Spirit’s refreshing our bodies via biological redemption and the creation model J.D. Johansen...........................................................................................................................................................................633 The role of and limits on uniformitarian principles in creationist sedimentology research S.A. Maithel.............................................................................................................................................................................634
The effect of American law on creation research and education: Using grassroots organization to respond S.C. Policastro Jr.....................................................................................................................................................................635 The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic text … A statistical perspective S.J. Smithers, T. Specht, and E.M. Smith.............................................................................................................................636 BIOLOGY ABSTRACTS New analyses suggest that all horses (Perissodactyla: Equidae) belong to a single holobaramin T.R. Brophy, and J.R. Gregory...............................................................................................................................................637 Molecular and morphological analyses confirm that all loons (Aves: Gaviiformes) form a single holobaramin T.R Brophy, M.-C.A. Matthews, M.M. Guillory and A.M. Ramerth..................................................................................638 A novel software for organelle genome-based baraminology studies M. Cserhati..............................................................................................................................................................................639 Messages in the genetic code: The DRAm form J.M. DeMassa...........................................................................................................................................................................640 The exquisite design of somatic hypermutation to enhance antibody diversity, binding affinity and self-tolerance F. Maas......................................................................................................................................................................................641 ENGINEERING ABSTRACTS Bacterial chemotaxis control illustrates an engineering framework in the creation model J.D. Johansen...........................................................................................................................................................................642 GEOLOGY ABSTRACTS Does the fossil record of non-mammalian synapsid digits show an increasing “mammal-ness?” E. Anderson, and M.A. McLain...........................................................................................................................................643 Noah’s Arks and viking funeral ships: A creationist look at the biogeographic patterns of tetrapods in the collisions of South America/North America and India/Asia R. Frields, C. LePore, and M.A. McLain........................................................................................................................644 Do fossil data suggest greater animal longevity in the pre-Flood world? L. Hebert III..........................................................................................................................................................................645 After awhile...crocodile?: An assessment of crocodylians as living fossils C. LePore................................................................................................................................................................................646 Hypogene Speleogenesis of Ozark Caves J . Miller....................................................................................................................................................................................647 Catastrophic plate tectonics and the tectonics of western North America S. Petersen and J. Baumgardner.........................................................................................................................................648 A creationist model of dinosaur paleobiogeography M. Surtees................................................................................................................................................................................649 Groundwater flow and the resulting heat transfer from the sea floor, immediately after the Genesis Flood D.M. Winsberg.......................................................................................................................................................................650 Effects of hot post-Flood groundwater flow from the sea floor D.M. Winsberg.......................................................................................................................................................................651 Long tree-ring chronologies: The role of “bridge” tree-ring series J. Woodmorappe...................................................................................................................................................................652 ASTRONOMY POSTERS A creationist model of impacts throughout the solar system T. Holt.....................................................................................................................................................................................653 BIOLOGY POSTERS Testing the cavefish model: An organism-focused theory of biological design M.J. Boyle, S. Arledge, B. Thomas, J.P. Tomkins, and R.J. Guiliuzza.............................................................................654 Hybridization and genetic distances suggest one large monobaramin in the gourd family (Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae) T.R. Brophy, J.R. Gregory, and B. Townsend.....................................................................................................................657 iv
Paleo-ontogenetic growth curves: Evidence for extreme past animal longevity? L. Hebert III.............................................................................................................................................................................659 EDUCATION POSTERS Is there still a need for a creation based graduate school? J. Bielecki.................................................................................................................................................................................661 ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS POSTERS Dynamic recrystallization and grain size effects on catastrophic motion of the earth’s mantle during the Flood: Advancement of “material models” H. Cho, J. Baumgardner, M. Lee, C. Miller, and M.F. Horstemeyer..................................................................................663 Modeling the process of rapid geomagnetic reversal during the Genesis Flood E. Katzaman, and J. Baumgardner.......................................................................................................................................664 FE analysis of tsunami generation during the Genesis Flood T. Lewis and J. Baumgardner................................................................................................................................................665 Genesis of the Creation Research Engineering Association J. Swan......................................................................................................................................................................................667 GEOLOGY POSTERS Using stromatolites to rethink the Precambrian-Cambrian Pre-Flood/Flood boundary K.P. Coulson.............................................................................................................................................................................669 Gastropod evolutionary phylogeny P. Doran, and N.A. Doran........................................................................................................................................................670 Diverse assemblage of arthropods in amber from Upper Cretaceous Tarheel Formation near Goldsboro, North Carolina D.J. Goodnight.........................................................................................................................................................................672 A decade of ICR Ice Age research L. Hebert III.............................................................................................................................................................................674 The layered Castile probably originated from salt magma S.J. Heerema, G.-J. van Heugten, and T. Clarey..................................................................................................................676 Can radiometric dating fit a biblical timescale? M. Jordan.................................................................................................................................................................................678 Orthocone cephalopods as paleocurrent indicators in the Ordovician Kimmswick Formation of northeastern Missouri Z.A. Klein.................................................................................................................................................................................680 Physical evidence for a post-Flood lacustrine depositional environment for Hopi/Bidahochi Lake N. Loper....................................................................................................................................................................................682 Quantum computing in creation geoscience M. McGuire, and K. McGuire.................................................................................................................................................684 Unresolved issues in hypothetical fish-to-amphibian evolution D. Prentice................................................................................................................................................................................686 The regression of the Flood in Virginia J.C. Rakestraw, and J. Melnick.............................................................................................................................................688 Geologic analysis of Ice Age simulation results E.G. Sultan, and S.M. Gollmer...............................................................................................................................................689 K-feldspar sand grain rounding in eolian and subaqueous transportation E.G. Sultan, and E. Henze.......................................................................................................................................................691 Re-evaluating the measurements of radioactive decay C.A. Wolcott Jr.........................................................................................................................................................................693 v
PREFACE vi © Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Cedarville University. The International Conference on Creationism has been taking place every four or five years since the first conference was held in 1986. ICC has become known as the premier young earth Creation conference in the world. Beginning with proposals that were submitted in 2022, editors and peer-reviewers have worked with the authors and have selected the papers that appear in this volume. New for the ninth conference are posters, abstracts, and round table discussions. These items were not peer-reviewed as stringently as the technical papers. There are fewer technical papers this time around, but our goal was not quantity, but quality. Historically only one-third to one-half of the submitted proposals are eventually published as papers in the Proceedings. For those who ultimately had proposals or papers that were not submitted or rejected, we encourage you to persist and improve in your research and writing. In this volume you will find many new ideas and proposals, both by well-seasoned scientists and young scholars presenting their first papers. The first eight ICC conferences were held in the Pittsburgh area and sponsored by Creation Science Fellowship. In 2020, CSF donated the organization of ICC to Cedarville University, moving the conference from a private organization to an academic one, in Cedarville, Ohio. The ICC Board now consists of five Cedarville University faculty members (Drs. Sharon Cooper, Steven Gollmer, Aaron Hutchison, Robert Paris, and John Whitmore) and two outside members (Drs. Jeremy Lyon and Clayton Schultz). The foresight of Creation Science Fellowship is to be commended for their vision of the Conference, now almost four decades old. The Proceedings are well-used in my office, and I suspect in many others around the world. My freshman geology students are introduced to the Proceedings almost immediately as a generally reliable and trustworthy source for Creation science. It is noteworthy that a local creation organization like CSF has made such a large impact. Their vision has helped to significantly improve the quality and rigor of Creation science publications. Within the papers of this volume you will find new data that continues to question the conventional paradigm of radiometric dating including further consideration of radiocarbon and radiohalos. Several papers use worldwide stratigraphic correlation and the Paleobiology Database to make conclusions on Flood boundaries. New papers on the potential of tsunamis to erode, transport and deposit sediment during the Flood are discussed. New evidence is emerging that a large lake was breached in post-Flood times to carve the Grand Canyon. The makeup of created kinds continues to be an area of active research including papers on dinosaur, ape, and hominin baraminology. Evidence of design within things as diverse as cavefish and stars continue to be topics of research. When ICC began, numerical modeling was not widely available to the creation community. Now, you will find papers modeling things as diverse as the development of the Ice Age, sediment dispersal during the Flood, genes and mutation rates, and relatedness of various animal groups—fossil and living. Abstract and poster presentations garnered a wide range of topics including archaeology, astronomy, baraminology, biblical topics, biology, design, education, geochronology, geology, law, numerical modeling, paleontology, philosophy, and software applications. Abstract presentations were 20 minutes long and the posters were set up during the entirety of the conference. Afternoon activities at ICC included a local field trip to examine the botany, biology, and geology of an exquisite county park and gorge just outside of Cedarville. Set up in our vendor hall was a portable planetarium highlighting new discoveries from the James Webb Telescope. Thomas Purifoy of Compass Cinema previewed a nearly completed version of the new feature film Is Genesis History? Mountains After the Flood. Round table discussions were well-attended and addressed what some would consider controversial topics within creationism. We addressed Flood boundaries, biogeography, and bird/feathered dinosaur controversy. The sessions were professionally done with respect of other positions. The conference is not publishing the content of these discussions because our intent was to openly discuss the data, problems, and differing points of view within these topics. Our hope is that these sessions will foster additional research and forthcoming publications. For our evening sessions, eleven scholars were asked to discuss the current state and future needs of young earth creation science in their particular field. Contributing were Drs. Bill Barrick (Bible), Andrew Snelling (geology), Russel Humphreys (physics), Joe Francis (biology), Douglass Petrovich (archaeology), Danny Faulkner (astronomy), John Baumgardner (numerical modeling), John Sanford (genetics), Kurt Wise (paleontology), Matt McLain (education), and Aaron Hutchison (chemistry). We appreciate the support of Cedarville University. CU’s doctrinal stance not only makes an organization and conference like ICC possible at the university, but its activities are actually encouraged as a natural part of our biblical integration as faculty. However, the views and ideas expressed at the conference and in the subsequent publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Cedarville University. Preparing papers for a volume of this type is not an easy task. Many of the authors have spent hundreds of hours studying, thinking, researching, collecting data, and preparing and editing numerous versions of their manuscripts. Some of the papers are the summation of life-long endeavors. All the first drafts of the manuscripts were peer-reviewed and many of the authors had to follow up with major revisions to satisfy the reviewers and editors. We appreciate 9th 2023 Whitmore, J.H. 2023. Preface. In J.H. Whitmore (editor), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, pp. vi-vii. Cedarville, Ohio: Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism.
the many hours of time contributed not only by the authors but by the peer-reviewers who carefully read and critiqued various versions of the manuscripts. This is often a thankless and difficult job. In many cases, the authors and peer-reviewers are never known to each other, as the process is kept as “blind” as possible. Special thanks to all who were involved in this process. I want to personally thank the Area Editors who agreed to help me by managing manuscripts in their particular fields of study. Their task was to garner peer-review for any manuscript that I sent their way and then to make final decisions on whether it should eventually become part of the Proceedings. This is a difficult job because reviewers do not often agree with each other, and the Area Editors often had to make difficult decisions about the papers under their purview. Assisting me in this effort were Paul Garner, Steve Gollmer, Aaron Hutchison, Jeremy Lyon, Sarah Maithel, Bob Paris, and Clayton Schultz. I am very grateful for their time and effort. I must apologize for my illness during much of the proposal and paper submission process. Many deadlines were extended, and the peer-review process was rushed in too many cases. I was tardy in getting proposals and manuscripts to Area Editors in a timely fashion. Due to the nature of my illness, it prevented me from thinking clearly and processing materials for ICC. I apologize for the difficulty this caused for many of our authors. Thank you for the grace and understanding that you afforded me during this time. Many from the ICC board stepped in to help, but the delays were entirely my responsibility. Diagnosis and treatment for Lyme disease is a vii long process, but I finally seem to be responding well after about six months of treatment. I want to give special recognition to my wonderful, beautiful wife Jamie whom I married 35 years ago. She has been extremely patient, encouraging, and supportive of me as I have had to spend many hours preparing the Proceedings. Lydia Bradley and Joy Miller assisted me in formatting author manuscripts. Because of some health struggles over the past year, I could not keep up with the task of formatting the manuscripts; the many hours they spent in my stead were much appreciated. Thomas Purifoy of Compass Cinema also played a significant role in finishing the Proceedings when he realized I was struggling. Thank you! Clear memories of the first ICC in 1986 at Duquesne University, now 37 years ago, are beginning to fade for me. But, one thing I do remember, as a young graduate student at the time, is being overwhelmed with the realization that God had prepared so many well-credentialed scientists like Drs. Austin, Baumgardner, Humphreys, and Wise. You will still find papers from these four scientists in this installment of the Proceedings, and their tribe has increased! I trust that you will carefully read and study these papers as you participate in “developing the Creation model of origins.” May all glory and honor go to our Lord and Creator! Dr. John H. Whitmore Senior Professor of Geology, Cedarville University 2023 International Conference on Creationism Editor July 2023
© Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Cedarville University. Faulkner, D.R. 2023. How should recent creationists respond to dark matter and dark energy? In J.H. Whitmore (editor), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 1-10. Cedarville, Ohio: Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism. HOW SHOULD RECENT CREATIONISTS RESPOND TO DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY? Danny R Faulkner, Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 510, Hebron, Kentucky 41048 dfaulkner@answersingenesis.org ABSTRACT For too long, recent creationists have dismissed the existence of dark matter and dark energy as rescuing devices for the big bang model. A proper survey of the history of both dark matter and dark energy reveals that this assessment of dark matter and dark energy is false. There are three robust lines of evidence for dark matter, two of which were known long before the big bang model became widely accepted. If the big bang model were to fall out of favor, the reality of dark matter would remain. Thus, the existence of dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang model. Dark matter easily can be included within a recent creation model, so I discourage recent creationists from rejecting the dark matter hypothesis in an attempt to nullify the big bang model. The unexpected downturn in the Hubble relation at great distances is the evidence for dark energy, albeit interpreted in terms of the big bang model. What the downward inflection of the Hubble relation might mean in a biblical cosmology/cosmogony is unknown, for no such model yet exists. In developing such models, I encourage recent creationists to consider the evidence generally interpreted in terms of dark matter and dark energy. KEYWORDS Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Cosmology, Cosmogony I. INTRODUCTION Since the turn of this century, dark matter and dark energy have been widely accepted in cosmological models. These models are based upon the big bang, the assumption that the universe suddenly appeared nearly 14 billion years ago in a very hot, dense, expanding state. The big bang model further posits that as the universe expanded and inevitably cooled, stars and structure (galaxies) arose, eventually resulting in the universe that we observe today. Since this model contradicts many aspects of the Genesis creation account, recent creationists reject the big bang model. Perhaps because of their close association with the big bang model, many creationists also reject dark matter and dark energy. However, is this rejection warranted? In this paper, I will review the evidence for dark matter and dark energy. I will demonstrate that the evidence for dark matter is very robust, predating the wide acceptance of the big bang model by nearly 40 years. Hence, the evidence for dark matter has very little to do with the big bang model, and I discourage recent creationists from rejecting the dark matter hypothesis as a strategy to nullify the big bang model. On the other hand, there is a much more intimate relationship between dark energy and the big bang model. There are data that when interpreted in terms of the big bang model leads to the conclusion of dark energy. While we reject the big bang model, the data remain. Creationists need to address the question of what that same data may mean within a truly biblically based cosmology. II. DARK MATTER There are three independent lines of evidence for dark matter: 1. Dispersion velocities of galaxy clusters 2. Rotation curves of spiral galaxies 3. Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies and quasars by closer galaxy clusters As I explained in an earlier paper (Faulkner 2017a), measurements of the dispersion of velocities of galaxies in clusters was the first observational evidence for dark matter, dating back 90 years ago (Zwicky 1933, 1937c; Ostriker, 1999). Zwicky measured the Doppler velocities of galaxies in the Coma Cluster. Assuming that the measured Doppler motions of those galaxies were due to orbital motion of the members of the Coma Cluster, Zwicky used the virial theorem to calculate the dynamic mass, the amount of mass required to account for the orbital motion. As explained below, astronomers already knew how much mass was required to produce the light we receive from galaxies. Therefore, from measurement of the brightness of galaxies on photographs of the Coma Cluster, Zwicky was able to determine the lighted mass of the Coma Cluster. Zwicky found that the dynamic mass of the Coma Cluster exceeded its lighted mass by two orders of magnitude. Adjustments in the cosmic distance scale since then have reduced the mismatch to only a factor of 50. Meanwhile, Smith (1936) found a similar discrepancy between the dynamic mass and the lighted mass of the Virgo cluster. Other clusters of galaxies show 9th 2023
similar differences between their dynamic and lighted masses. Interestingly, Kahn and Woltjer (1959) found that the mass required to account for the mutual orbital motion of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) required six times the combined mass of the two galaxies. In his first paper (in German), Zwicky referred to dunkle materie, which translates into English as dark matter. However, that term was not used by astronomers for decades. Instead, astronomers used the term missing mass. It was only since the 1980s that astronomers changed back to Zwicky’s original term. Slusher (1974) was the first to mention in the creation literature the discrepancy between the dynamic and lighted masses of galaxy clusters as a possible argument for recent origin (see p. 343 of Faulkner [2019] for other references of this in the creation literature). Slusher saw this as evidence for recent origin. His reasoning was that since the velocities of galaxies in clusters exceed the orbital velocities implied by the lighted masses of the clusters, the galaxies were not orbiting. Rather, the motions of galaxy in clusters indicated that clusters are not gravitationally bound and thus are expanding. This expansion could continue indefinitely, but it could not have been going on very long, much less than the supposed billions of year age of the universe. Bouw (1977a, 1977b) offered an early discussion in the creation literature of the velocities of galaxies in the Virgo cluster and recommended caution in using this argument based upon observations that suggest that the observed motions of its members is orbital. This amounts to a conclusion that dark matter may be real. I have agreed with this assessment (Faulkner 1998, 2017a). The opposition to dark matter that some recent creationists have may stem from a desire to maintain this argument for recent origin that Slusher pioneered. The second line of evidence for dark matter, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, goes back nearly as far as Zwicky’s work with the Coma Cluster. A century ago, astronomers began to measure the orbital motion of objects within galaxies to determine the masses of those galaxies. The nuclei of spiral galaxies account for much of the light of those galaxies, and presumably much of their masses (more mass translates into more stars, which translates into more light). Spiral galaxies appear to be radially symmetric, suggesting the mass distribution in spiral galaxies is also radially symmetric. When mass is distributed with radial symmetry, the only mass that affects an object’s orbital velocity is that mass orbiting more closely to the center than the object. Therefore, measuring the Doppler motion across the long axis of a spiral galaxy acts as a probe of the mass distribution as a function of distance from the galaxy’s center. The summation of the mass distribution yields the total mass. A correction must be applied for how out of the line of sight the orbital motion is. For any spiral galaxy, this angle is easily determined by measuring the galaxy’s major and minor axes in a photograph. Radial velocity studies of the nuclei of spiral galaxies showed a linear relationship between orbital velocity and distance from the centers of those galaxies. If the amount of light is directly proportional to mass, then this linear relationship in the nuclei of galaxies is expected. Therefore, these studies confirm the relationship between light and mass, what astronomers call the mass to light ratio, at least in the nuclei of spiral galaxies. Since spectroscopy disperses light, it is a very inefficient use of light. A century ago, these studies required the largest telescopes that then existed, with photography that was at best 1-2 percent efficient. This severely limited how faint these studies could be conducted. Therefore, only the closest galaxies were sampled, and then only their nuclear regions. This resulted in finding only the masses of the nuclei of galaxies. But since the nuclei of spiral galaxies accounted for much of the light of the galaxies, masses measured this way were expected to be well within an order of magnitude of the entire masses of the galaxies, probably within a factor of 2-3. It was these studies, along with kinematic studies within our Milky Way Galaxy, that established the light to mass ratio that Zwicky used to establish the lighted mass of clusters of galaxies. What was the expected behavior of orbital motion outside of the nuclei of spiral galaxies? Since the light outside the nuclei of galaxies abruptly decreases just outside the nuclei and then continues to gradually decreases with increasing distance, the mass distribution was expected to similarly decline with increasing distance as well. When objects orbit a large, centrally located mass, orbital motion is inversely proportional to orbital distance. For instance, the sun contains more than 99.8% of the solar system’s mass. Consequently, the orbital speeds of planets are inversely proportional to their orbital distances. Since this condition fits planetary motion well, and Kepler’s laws describe planetary motion, then orbital velocity that is inversely proportional to orbital distance is called Keplerian. Since there is light emanating beyond the nuclear regions of spiral galaxies, the mass distribution beyond the nuclei is not zero, but it would be expected to be much smaller than the mass in the nuclei. Hence, the expected velocity function would be to begin to abruptly decrease beyond the nuclei and approach Keplerian behavior (See Fig. 1). A century ago, the size of telescopes and the observational techniques then in use did not make it feasible to extend radial velocity studies beyond the nuclei of spiral galaxies. At the edge of the nuclei, the radial velocity curves appeared to turn over, suggesting that beyond that point the radial velocities curves approached Keplerian behavior, so there was no reason to pursue the radial velocity curves farther out. Pushing the limits of what was technologically possible at the time, Babcock (1939) showed that the orbital velocities of a few objects some distance from the nucleus of the Andromeda Galaxy (M 31) were not Keplerian. Indeed, those objects had velocities that were about as high as the turnover point. The following year, Oort (1940) found similar anomalous results for the lenticular galaxy NGC 3115. He wrote that “the distribution of mass in the system appears to bear almost no relation to that of light.” Astronomers tended to ignore these anomalies for three decades. Perhaps it was because they didn’t know what to make of them. During these three decades, the masses of additional galaxies were determined by stopping at the turnover points on their radial velocity curves, again assuming that those curves were Keplerian beyond the turnover points. For instance, as I have documented (Faulkner 2021), between 1959 and 1965 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge and their collaborators published more than two dozen papers applying this technique to various galaxies. The non-Keplerian nature beyond the turnover point was obvious in many of those radial velocity curves. However, the Burbidges ignored this and calculated galaxy masses from the portion of the radial velocity curves in the galaxy’s nuclei. Since the Burbidges were so respected by other astronomers, they FAULKNER Dark matter and dark energy 2023 ICC 2
probably played a role in astronomers overlooking the evidence for dark matter in these radial velocity curves. It is interesting that Vera Rubin was a collaborator with the Burbidges in five of the papers in the last two years of their work on radial velocity curves of galaxies. About the time of this collaboration, Rubin was first author on a paper that did not involve the Burbidges which examined motions of stars within the Milky Way (Rubin, et al. 1962). They found that “for R > 8.5 kpc, the stellar curve is flat, and does not decrease as is expected for Keplerian orbits.” This may have been the first clear indication that a similar problem exists in the Milky Way Galaxy. About this time, Rubin met instrument maker Kent Ford, which a few years later resulted in a decade-long collaboration extending radial velocity curves of spiral galaxies. Ford combined image tubes, the latest technology used in astronomy in the late 1960s, to boost the sensitivity of cameras recording spectra. When combined with the larger telescopes coming into use at that time (especially the two 4-meter telescopes at the recently opened national optical observatories) allowed extending good observations over the supposed Keplerian part of galaxy radial velocity curves for the first time. Being the closest and hence brightest spiral galaxy, M 31 was the first target (Rubin and Ford 1970), in which they confirmed Babcock’s earlier work. It is worth noting that more than a decade earlier, a study of 21-cm radiation of neutral hydrogen in M 31 showed the same thing (van de Hulst, et al. 1957; Schmidt 1957). Additionally, Roberts and Whitehurst (1975) extended the rotation curve of M31 beyond what Rubin and Ford had. Roberts and Whitehurst found that the mass-tolight ratio in the outermost regions of M31 had to be at least 200. Rubin and Ford spent the 1970s investigating the radial velocity curves of many spiral galaxies, culminating in 1980 (Rubin, et al. 1980). While Rubin was pursuing this work optically in the 1970s, radio astronomers were using 21-cm radiation to produce radial velocity curves of galaxies that agreed with the visible light results of Rubin and Ford (Rogstad and Shostak 1972). By the 1980s, this groundbreaking work began to convince most astronomers of the reality of dark matter. It was not until 1984 that Bond, et al. (1984) resurrected Zwicky’s original term dark matter. In the 1980s, cosmologists began to discuss dark matter within big bang models, though that discussion did not begin in earnest until the 1990s. One would think that inclusion of dark matter in cosmological models would have been motivated by the desire to have realistic models. After all, if gravity is the dominant force in cosmology, and if gravity is caused by matter, then cosmological models that omit 90% of the mass of the universe cannot be very good. However, this does not seem to have been the case. One reason why cosmologists began to include dark matter was to explain galaxy formation. The density of the universe in big bang models at the time could not account for galaxy formation. It was hoped that dark matter could help solve this problem. Another reason dark matter was considered in Figure 1. A measured rotation curve of the galaxy M33 superimposed upon an image of the galaxy. The origin of the rotation curve is at the galaxy’s center. The horizontal axis is distance from the galactic center, with radial velocity on the vertical axis. The dashed line is the rotation curve expected from the light distribution, assuming that light and mass are directly related. Beyond the turnover around 9,000 light years from the galactic center, the expected curve approaches Keplerian. Contrast this with the observed orbital velocity consisting of yellow and blue data points fitted to the solid line. FAULKNER Dark matter and dark energy 2023 ICC 3
cosmology was the desire to achieve critical density in a Friedmann universe. In a roundabout way, this addresses the need to have a more realistic big bang model by considering all the matter in the universe. However, we don’t live in a Friedmann universe (dark energy is not compatible with a Friedmann universe). Frankly, I never understood this bias among cosmologists. Even before the discovery of dark energy, the assumption of a Friedmann universe seemed like an unnecessary imposition. And even if we live in a Friedmann universe, why must its density be critical? The density of the universe ought to be a measured quantity, not an assumed boundary condition. The third line of evidence for dark matter is gravitational lensing. If a very massive object is nearly in the line of sight of a much more distant object, the strong gravity of the nearer object can distort spacetime so that the light of the more distant object is bent, resulting in an altered view of the more distant object. Since this bending is similar to the refraction of a lens, this phenomenon is called gravitational lensing. While there were several early publications suggesting the possibility of gravitational lensing, the phenomenon is most associated with Albert Einstein, who published a paper about it in 1936. These early treatments were primarily theoretical. The first practical discussion of gravitational lensing was the following year when Zwicky (1937a, 1937b), proposed that clusters of galaxies could act as gravitational lenses of more distant galaxies. Depending upon the geometry, gravitational lensing can take several forms. One form of gravitational lensing is two or more images of the same object. The first discovered gravitational lens was of this type (Walsh, Carswell, and Weymann 1979). The twin quasar SBS 0957+561 consists of two quasars separated by just six arcseconds and having the same redshift (z = 1.41) and nearly the same apparent magnitude. On images of SBS 0957+561, the giant elliptical galaxy Q0957+561 G1 with redshift z = 0.355 is asymmetrically located between the twins. Since Q0957+561 G1 has a much smaller redshift, it is presumed to be in the foreground of SBS 0957+561. The proximity of two quasars with similar spectra, identical redshifts, and nearly the same apparent magnitude suggested that they were two images of the same quasar. Confirmation came when identical variations in brightness of the two quasars separated in time by 417 days were discovered. This is interpreted as a delay due to different travel distances of light on two different paths caused by the galaxy Q0957+561 G1 not lying exactly along the line of site to the midway between quasar SBS 0957+561. The more common situation is gravitational lensing of a distant galaxy or galaxies by a nearer cluster of galaxies. One of the best examples of this is CL 0024+17 (aka ZwCl 0024+1652) (Anonymous, no date) (see Fig. 2). Most of the cluster members in this HST image of CL 0024+17 appear yellow. However, near the center of the cluster there are a series of blue concentric arcs that are gravitationally lensed images of more distant galaxies. Modeling the observed lensing allows determining the amount of mass required to produce the lensing, as well as the distribution of the mass (see Fig. 3). In every case of gravitational lensing caused by clusters of galaxies, the total inferred mass exceeds the lighted mass by a factor of 5-10. III. CREATIONISTS’ RESPONSES TO DARK MATTER The concordance from the three lines of evidence for dark matter on the amount of dark matter required to explain the observations is striking. Under most circumstances, such concordance constitutes a strong case, but astronomers were very reluctant to reach this concluFigure 2. A Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image of CL 0024+17. Photo credit: NASA/ESA/HST. Figure 3. The gravity map of CL 0024+17 determined from the amount of gravitational lensing superimposed on the image of Figure 2. Image credit: NASA/ESA/HST. FAULKNER Dark matter and dark energy 2023 ICC 4
digitalcommons.cedarville.eduRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=