|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: polonium halos | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Solum Inactive Junior Member |
Tranquility Base:
Your link states that the half life is dependent on Q (the KE release) but it may be dependent on other things. It actually poinys out that you can get 24 orders of magnitude half life change from a doubling of Q so maybe the 6 orders of magnitude change in half-life we are talking about could even use a small Q change. I'm an ex- particle physicist but I'll take a look at the RATE book before wasting too much time on it. The half-life may certainly be dependent on other factors, but I still don’t see how you can change the half-life without changing the kinetic energy release, and therefore the halo diameter. With that said, I’m not a physicist, and if you know of such a way, I’d love to see it. I suppose that the point you’re trying to make is that you don’t need much of a change in Q to get a big change in half-life. It seems that you’re arguing that perhaps Q changed enough to result in a big change in the half-life but not a measurable change in the halo diameter. I don’t think that’s a workable idea. From the reprints of Gentry’s papers available on his website or in the appendix of his book (these data are from his 1968 (not available on his web site) and 1973 papers): Isotopes of polonium: Isotope-alpha particle kinetic energy-Half-life-Halo radius 218Po-6.0MeV-3.0min-23micrometers214Po-7.69MeV-164microseconds-34micrometers 210Po-5.30MeV-138days-19micrometers The difference in alpha particle kinetic energy between 210Po and 218Po is 0.7MeV, an increase of 13%, and the difference in half-lives is 5 orders of magnitude. The difference between 218Po and 214Po is 1.69MeV, an increase of 28%, and the difference in half-lives is 6 orders of magnitude. Based on these data, it seems that changing the decay of Po by six orders of magnitude will result in measurable differences in the size of the halos, even assuming that such a change were possible. Based on the alpha particle kinetic energy of the isotopes in the decay series of 238U that Gentry lists in the 1973 paper, isotopes that differ by as little as 0.1MeV produce halos that are far enough apart to be optically resolvable. This seems to me to indicate that even very small changes in the kinetic energy release will result in measurable differences in the halo size. Tranquility Base:I've actually got Gentry's 1980s book. On the halo.com site he is certainly claiming that the 'refutations' are invalid. I picked up a used copy of Gentry’s book a while back. I wasn’t trying to dismiss his refutations in my previous post, but I was trying to put off a discussion of them until after you’d read his work. The refutations by Gentry that I can find are:Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire and http://www.halos.com/finger.htm One of the problems with Gentry’s work that I pointed out is that his rocks are from younger dikes emplaced in an older rock, and so dikes cannot be Genesis rocks since the physical relationships indicate that the metamorphic rocks are older than the halo-bearing dikes. One of the refutations that Gentry makes to this is that the age relationships are based on radioisotope dating, which he dismisses (which in fact, if true, would invalidate his work for reasons we’ve been discussing). He also attempts to refute the problems caused by the age relationship of the dikes with the metamorphic rocks by saying that they’re both creation rocks, and that the metamorphic rocks were created earlier in the creation week than the dikes. The biggest problem here is that this ignores the history recorded in the metamorphic rocks. The metamorphic rocks did not start out as metamorphic rocks, they were metamorphosed when they were subjected to intense heat and pressure. In some cases it’s still possible to see what the parent of the metamorphic rock was, it’s possible to identify what type of rock the metamorphic rock was before it was metamorphosed. There are still recognizable pillow basalts near the locations in Ontario where Gentry collected his samples. This indicates that these rocks initially formed as basalts that were erupted underwater and were later subjected to heat and pressure to form the metamorphic rock that exists today. In fact, the rocks in the Bancroft area record several different episodes of deformation and accompanying metamorphism. Gentry can attempt to dismiss these problems as uniformitarian assumptions, but that just ignores these problems. Another refutation that I’ve encountered is that it’s not possible to make granite in the lab, and this indicates that the formation of granite requires miraculous creation. The biggest problem with this claim is that not all granites are Precambrian, there are granites and granitic rocks that are quite young. For example the large granitic intrusions in the Bingham canyon copper mine in Utah (the largest or perhaps second largest open pit mine in the world — an irrelevant but interesting bit of trivia), are Tertiary. This is not indicated by radioisotope dating (although radioisotope dating does confirm this), it is indicated by the fact that these intrusions cross-cut pre-Tertiary rocks, and so the intrusions are younger than those rocks. In fact there are huge inclusions of these pre-Tertiary rocks (referred to as xenoliths, if you’re familiar with the term) in the intrusions that are 10s to 100s of meters long. Gentry can claim that the Tertiary age can be discarded because it’s based on uniformitarian assumptions, but that just ignores the physical relationships between the intrusion and the surrounding rocks, in no way does it invalidate the age. Quite clearly, granites cannot be remnants of the creation week. I’ll have to stop there for now, I’d rather sit here and type for the rest of the day, but I have to go to work. Thanks for the interesting discussions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John S
I agree with you and creationists are generally reinterpreting Gentry's findings including this Nov 2002 ICR impact article: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Solum Inactive Junior Member |
From Snelling’s article:
Furthermore, such accelerated radioactive decay would have generated a large pulse of heat during the Flood. This in turn would have helped to initiate and drive the global tectonic processes that operated during the Flood year, and to accomplish catastrophically much geologic work, including the regional metamorphism of sedimentary strata and the melting of crustal and mantle rocks to produce granitic and other magmas. The first problem here is that Snelling is missing the point that the halos aren’t compatible with the idea that radioactive decay was faster in the past. I think Snelling is also significantly underestimating the amount of heat the would be generated by accelerated radioactive decay, as Joe Meert has previously pointed out:ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem From Snelling’s article:The implications are far-reaching. Because the half-lives of these Po isotopes are very short, the hydrothermal fluid transport had to be extremely rapid. The hydrothermal fluids are generated as the granitic magmas cool, so the timeframe for the cooling of these granitic magmas has to have been extremely short (only days!) as the expelled hydrothermal fluids also carried away the heat. The short half-lives of the polonium isotopes do not indicate that the granite cooled in a matter of days. This seems to me to be a move toward Gentry’s original premise that the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes indicate that the granites formed in a matter of microseconds. The half-lives are not related to the time it takes the granite to crystallize. All that’s required for polonium halos to form is for a source of the polonium to move through the rocks (as I discussed earlier radon-222 looks like the most likely candidate). As I mentioned in my first post, the area where Gentry collected his samples in Ontario is very rich in radioactive minerals. Since radioactive decay is still occurring in this rocks, Rn-222 is still being generated, and so there is still a source of polonium moving through the rocks there. I also don’t see how the presence of polonium halos provides any information about the cooling history of the igneous rocks that contain them since the halos can form at any time after the rock has cooled. I understand that the article you linked to is most likely only a brief summary of Snelling’s thoughts on polonium halos. If/when he provides more detailed information, I’ll be happy to take it into account. However, based on this article Snelling’s claims about the implication of the occurrence of polonium halos are not workable. I am encouraged to see that Gentry’s arguments are being discarded, however based on this article, I do not think Snelling’s are any more supportable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
give me a few minutes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Whatever in his latest evolution as John Fulton want's to discuss Polonium halos, so I am reviving this thread for this purpose.
This is the history. To see the last reply see Message 22 In Message 18 whatever said:
Your graft is about present decay rates however is not the halos about the ionizing of the rock as the alpha particle leaves the nucleus. How do you explain squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos and no evidence of the parent element? Orphan? Enjoy, JF +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24 http://www.answersingenesis.org/...3/n3/evidence-young-world 404 Not Found
He was told it was off topic there. Now he has revived it on Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth. On Message 20 he posted
What about primordial polonium halo's concentric halo's means the earth cooled within 30 minutes. right? Its evidence the earth didn't cool for billions of years. right? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Polonium Halos in Deep Earth Granite Traditional science says that earth was formed from molten matter from stars and it was cooled down slowly - overy billions of years.Then Robert Gentry discovered one of the most intriguing mystery that challenges the traditional theory of the "creation of the earth". Gentry discovered Polonium Halos in granite rocks which CANNOT have formed if the earth cools down over billions of years.... There has not been any satisfactory explanation for this discovery, except one: that the earth was formed in a solid form within minutes !!! Gentry reported that he had specifically tested whether the halos were caused by primordial polunium (i.e., starting with Polonium as initial element, in other words: the polonium was NOT a product of radio-active decade). The Implications of Polonium-238 halos So what the big deal about these Polonium-218 halos ???Well, it would not be anything special if some other element (like U-238) was originally embedded in the rock when it was formed.... But the fact that the ORIGINAL material was Polonium-218 make every difference, because of the decay sequence and the half-time of Polonium-218. Think: To form a Polonium-218 halo, some Polonium-218 must be embedded into the rock BEFORE the rock becomes solid To form a Polonium-218 halo, the Polonium-218 must be decaying AFTER the rock becomes solid Polonium-218 halo has a half life of 3 minutes, so after 30 minutes, almost all of the Polonium-218 would have disappeared !!! So ???....The time between the rocks of the earth was molten and that is was solidified is at most 30 minutes !!!! Here in lies the problem for the traditional Big Bang theory - it proposes a hot earth and cooled down VERY SLOWLY - it took BILLIONS of years to cool, not just 30 minutes !!! Study Pages AdminNosy said "You haven't finished with the RATE group yet. You can get to Gentry's halos later." and there were no other replies on polonium to that message. On Message 26 he replied to AdminNosy with
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research My reply was Message 28 where I said
... (non polonium comments deleted)
One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research. ... 2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! OR that the earth is actually in reality old. Very old. Billions of years old. Seeing as doubling up the rate of decay several thousand fold by any method that changes the physical constants would also turn normal elements into radioactive elements, decaying right left and center, that this would have turned the whole earth into a huge nuclear bomb as well as a volcanic mass of radioactive magma that would have exploded into space, the continued existence of earth shows this concept to be false. So that's out. So, seeing as we know that changing the rate of decay is BOGUS, we know that the RATE group claim is BOGUS.
1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously. But this too is false. What is true is that you don't find Polonium halos without Uranium halos, and that you don't find Polonium halos without Radon having acces to fill voids in the rock in question. No Radon (produced by uranium decay) infiltration into rocks, means no Polonium halos. Curiously Polonium is a product of the decay of Radon, so what you are REALLY seeing are Radon Haloes. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
quote: There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium. Enjoy. Coragyps replied in Message 29 where he said
This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days, melting the earth and vaporizing most of it. - - Fixed it for you, and for Dr Snelling. In whatever's reply to me, Message 30, he posted
The possible effects of changing temperature, pressure, chemical state, and electric or magnetic field strength on the three decay mechanisms relevant to geologic dating have been intensively studied, both theoretically and experimentally. These studies have shown that changing environmental conditions have either no measurable effect or a negligible effect (less than 1%, and that only for 7Be, which decays through electron capture) on the rate at which the decay processes occur (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 86-90). Interestingly they never mentioned photons which affect the nucleur forces inside the atom, etc...
They could not find any way that significantly changed decay rates They either are uniformitarians or afraid of losing tenure? It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right? With biotite flakes having polonium halo's it does suggest accelerated decay happened during the biblical flood to a creationists! If it can not be radon because of mobility problems over long periods of time then it might well be due to accelerated decay in a water medium to deal with the mobility radon problems. right? -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Snelling said: At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos. The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earth Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research
There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium. To produce the amount of polonium halo's Snelling is talking about thats not primordial polonium would require 238 U to decay so rapidly that Snellings suggesting its like evidence of 100's of millions of years of decay happening in just the one year of the biblical world flood. -------------------------------------------------------------- There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5 Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research The primordial polonium halos are pictures of the past showing radon gas is too mobile to of parented these perfectly focused polonium halo's. Its evidence the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes or the polonium would of decayed before the granites formed. The granite can not form and go thru the decay chain to polonium 218 due radon gas is mobile meaning the halos Gentry is talking about would of been smudged because radon gas is not bound to one location. Primordial Polonium however is bound to one location and because no evidence it decayed from radon means its primordial having no decay parent and without a parent the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes. right?
There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium. Radon is just too mobile to produce halo's because radon is not positively grounded. right? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Then Radon decades to Po-218; and voila - Polonium halos... This explanation has a lot of holes: If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halosSome articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms. The result of this is randomly situated Polonium-218 atoms. The consequence of this is: a undetectable smear instead of sharply visible concentrated Polonium halos. (The discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear). Although Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons. After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot.Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Study Pages (On Message 31 he replied to Coragyps with comments not about polonium) My reply, Message 34, to whatever said
With biotite flakes having polonium halo's it does suggest accelerated decay happened during the biblical flood to a creationists! If it can not be radon because of mobility problems over long periods of time then it might well be due to accelerated decay in a water medium to deal with the mobility radon problems. right? Wrong. Why? Because Radon is a gas, immensely soluble in water and does not have "mobility problems of long periods of time" ... the gas will diffuse through water due to the nature of chemicals wanting to reach equilibrium partial pressures.
They either are uniformitarians or afraid of losing tenure? It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right? It takes a creationist to turn to a conspiracy theory every time reality proves they are completely wrong, that their pet belief is falsified, and that continued belief would be delusional. This is predicted behavior due to cognitive dissonance.
Andrew Snelling said: ... ... many lies
At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes ... Except that it was shown that all the samples that Gentry used came from long after the metamorphic processes were history, when the rocks were cracked, infected with uranium and then saturated with Radon as a result. Then the granite recrystallized, complete with brand new polonium.
and ICR doesn't know a lie from the truth (or at least they make no distinction on their website), so they cannot be trusted for true information.
There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). Obviously the uranium DID decay over long periods of time - it takes over 100 million years to form a uranium halo. One of the decay products is Radon, which is mobile, which decays into Polonium, which is not. A pocket big enough to continually attract Radon by partial pressure will form a Radon halo that looks just (imagine that) like a Polonium halo.
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - Except that it doesn't need to accumulate in a single spot, all it needs to do is be in one place with a higher frequency than the adjoining areas, and a small increase in the size of a pocket will do that. A small discontinuity pocket that has 100 times the volume of the neighboring part of a crack or fissure or crystal face will, over time, have 100 times the concentration of the radon than those other areas. The radon keeps forming, disbursing and decaying. You still have no mechanism worth wasting bandwidth on for changing the rate of decay, all you have is bogus information from people that lie. Enjoy. In Message 35 he responded with
A small discontinuity pocket that has 100 times the volume of the neighboring part of a crack or fissure or crystal face will, over time, have 100 times the concentration of the radon than those other areas. The radon keeps forming, disbursing and decaying. If you have a pocket of radon gas it has to be spot on. right? A pocket of mobile gases can never be right on in a crack and close only gets you a smudged image of polonium. right? If its not close to the previous polonium image it gives no image until the image is reinforced by previous alphas that that decayed from a positively grounded location in the center of the halo. Is not this why Gentry point of primordial valid? and why you don't see radon halo's? If this is in fact the case then its evidence toward young earthdom!
You still have no mechanism worth wasting bandwidth on for changing the rate of decay, all you have is bogus information from people that lie. You mean your sources well all it appears they can do is but provide misinformation that radon could be center of halos the instant polonium decays which is of course baloney! right? If not in the exact center over time the halo would be smudged? Gentry has asked the Academy of Sciences to refute these points that they have not in over 15 years and all you have is radon gas might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and long periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Young Earth". right? I replied with Message 44If you have a pocket of radon gas it has to be spot on. right? A pocket of mobile gases can never be right on in a crack and close only gets you a smudged image of polonium. right? If its not close to the previous polonium image it gives no image until the image is reinforced by previous alphas that that decayed from a positively grounded location in the center of the halo. Is not this why Gentry point of primordial valid? and why you don't see radon halo's? If this is in fact the case then its evidence toward young earthdom! Not really, all the halos are relatively blurry rather than well defined, so all you need to have is a small volume of the dimension of the blurring. The Polonium then settles to the bottom of the pocket, concentrating them at the bottom of the pocket before they decay. Remember that if you have a lump of Polonium that even then each atom decays from a different location inside the lump. So you just need a space the size of a lump. And we are talking fissures as small in width as atoms, so a space that size is several hundred times the size of the fissure.
You mean your sources well all it appears they can do is but provide misinformation that radon could be center of halos the instant polonium decays which is of course baloney! right? Yes, seeing as you have it mixed up, it certainly is balony. Radon decays and leaves Polonium in the lump sized pocket.The Radon halo is similar in size enough to one of the other rings that they can be blurred together.
Gentry has asked the Academy of Sciences to refute these points that they have not in over 15 years and all you have is radon gas might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and long periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Young Earth". right? Gentry first needs to refute that Radon caused his halos. That in over 15 years he has failed to do so "might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and short periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Old Earth". right?" (presumably you understand your syntax) Enjoy. he responded with Message 46Gentry first needs to refute that Radon caused his halos. That in over 15 years he has failed to do so "might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and short periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Old Earth". right?" Wrong, Here's Gentries response to to what the dogs on the internet are saying about radon and why it all still comes out an young earth. right? P.S. If you think your right then contact the academy of sciences to refute Gentry because thats the next step because any dog on the internet can post objections but can you get the academy of sciences to post your objections can you get any reputable scientific journal to publish your spurious claims? The answer is the evolutionists can not get their claims published. right? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ According to Gentry: Briefly, to begin, those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts.The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the Internet (anyone can do that, even a DOG :-)) is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claims The evidence clearly favors Gentry: basically, Gentry challenged them to step up to the plate and start a debate in a peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals (the rebuttal works on halos are published on the Internet (no review at all) or in education journals). So far, Gentry has no luck... that really make you wonder how "scientific" these criticisms on Gentry's halo work really are.... Polonium as a result of radon decade Another explanation of the polonium halos is "wandering radon" - see point 3 in click here. Their logic is as follows: Radium decades to Radon-222 and Radon is a gas - it can move through cracks in the granite Radon is initially negatively charged (because it was formed by radium emitting a positively charged alpha particle, so the radon formed will have a surplus of electrons) and The negatively charged Radon gas could diffuse and gather at a "positively charged" location... Then Radon decades to Po-218; and voila - Polonium halos... This explanation has a lot of holes: If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halosSome articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms. The result of this is randomly situated Polonium-218 atoms. The consequence of this is: a undetectable smear instead of sharply visible concentrated Polonium halos. (The discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear). Although Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons. After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot.Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Study Pages And my last reply before redirecting the replies here was Message 60, and this is now Message 22 on this thread. This has now been deleted from the other thread in order to direct replies here. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : moved most recent reply to a new message on this thread by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Was there perhaps some point at which even you began to wonder if maybe you weren't running a bit long? This is a rhetorical question, no response necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well whatever,
According to Gentry: Briefly, to begin, those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts.The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the Internet (anyone can do that, even a DOG :-)) is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claims The evidence clearly favors Gentry: basically, Gentry challenged them to step up to the plate and start a debate in a peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals (the rebuttal works on halos are published on the Internet (no review at all) or in education journals). So far, Gentry has no luck... that really make you wonder how "scientific" these criticisms on Gentry's halo work really are.... Which doesn't prove Gentry right, nor does it show that he has answered those critics in any way other than bluff. Perhaps the reason no one has taken him up is a problem with credibility as a geologist: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted
quote: Your source has problems too:
quote: The first point is a false assertion: radioactive material can be carried by air and water, so all you need are cracks and fissures in the rock for uranium and other radioactive materials to be carried into the rock. As we saw previously, the rocks that Gentry used were all rocks that have had an extensive period in their existence, since they cooled from magma, where the rock was fissured and later recrystallized, they were all cases where the rocks were infected with uranium inclusions, and where radon gas had plenty of opportunity to fill every void and fissure in the rock.
If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halos Some articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms. Let me carry the logic one step further, the radon being a gas would decay from anywhere inside a pocket, the Polonium result would fall to the bottom of the pocket and concentrate in a smaller spot. "Polonium Haloes" Refuted
quote: And from the sidebar
quote: The only Polonium halos found are for Polonium-218 that is a product of Radon-222 decay?
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot And this too is falsified by the evidence showing radon halos along fissures. The bottom line is that Gentry et al cannot eliminate Radon as an explanation for Polonium halos, and because they cannot eliminate it, they cannot conclude that the only explanation is a young earth. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
You did not respond to these points, etc... right? If you could deal with these points you could likely get your rebutal published in a peer reviewed journal. right?
P.S.When elements decay from a single point halos of different size form. If radon was decaying producing a polonium halo you'd have another halo ring of a different size formed. Radon is not evident alongside a polonium halo because its too mobile to decay in a single point. Its absense prove proves Gentry's polonium is primordial no parent, etc... However talk origins is a pseudo science site all double talk (no substance). right? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halos Although Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons. After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot. Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Study Pages Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You did not respond to these points, etc... right? Wrong.
If you could deal with these points you could likely get your rebutal published in a peer reviewed journal. right? Irrelevant: already done. The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
quote: Ignoring already existing rebuttals does not make them go away.
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Falsified by evidence. The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
quote: bold for empHAsis. There's more there for the curious. Like a picture by Gentry that shows the blurred rings from radon-218\polonium-210 decay. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Falsified by evidence. The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics YOur source seems to be talking about water causing a depositing of polonium as a solid out of solution as radon decays. This too is what Andrew Snelling seems to be saying about accelerated decay and biotite flakes polonium halos. A problem in granite is over long periods of time your cracks would seal due mineralization. right? If water is your means of moving billions of radon decays to a common location. right? but wouldn't mineralization seal the pathway over a long earth point of view defeat this theory that polonium halos happened due radon dissolved. It just sounds like a strawman too me! No wonder Gentry did not respond its the kind of stuff you would expect coming from someone citing a pseudo site like talk origins as a reference. right? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At the surface, Gentry’s interpretation seems compelling. His halos do not have the additional rings found in complete uranium-238 halos, as shown in Figure 2. Measurements show the rings have radii indicative of certain polonium isotopes. There is no evidence of uranium at the halo center. According to Gentry, there are no means for polonium to be inserted into the granite after cooling. If everything Gentry claims is true then the earth had to cool in about three minutes, the half-life of Po218, the first ring to form. Longer cooling periods, especially the millions of years science suggests, would deplete the polonium long before halos could form in the hardened rock. Even the most commited atheist couldn’t explain a 3 minute cooling time without invoking a creator. With further investigation however, Gentry’s interpretation is obviously flawed. The first attempts to dispute his assertions, though on the right track, fell short and were easily dismissed by Gentry. They included hydrothermal injection of polonium (York 1979), uranium release during weathering (Meier 1976), and varients of uranium halos (Moazed 1973). All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos. Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
YOur source seems to be talking about water causing a depositing of polonium as a solid out of solution as radon decays. This too is what Andrew Snelling seems to be saying about accelerated decay and biotite flakes polonium halos. A problem in granite is over long periods of time your cracks would seal due mineralization. right? If water is your means of moving billions of radon decays to a common location. right? but wouldn't mineralization seal the pathway over a long earth point of view defeat this theory that polonium halos happened due radon dissolved. If, and only if, the mineralization occurred long ago and then all fissure forming stopped altogether. Instead we can comprehend a continuous process of fracture, flow, mineralization, fracture, flow, mineralization ... etc. ... over billions of years. Consider another piece of compelling evidence from the polonium halos themselves: They are not dark filled in halos like many of the uranium ones but very light on the numbers of decay cycles needed to form them. You need less Polonium atoms than formed the uranium halos, and those took hundreds of millions of years of decay to form. Thus for every uranium-235 halo in the rock, you need less than one radon-222 atom every (703,800,000 years/3.823 days) to get close enough to the same place and decay to get the same density halo. Not very hard odds wouldn't you say? Notice that Gentry says that "A concentration of 10^8 to 10^9 decayed atoms is needed to create visible damage rings" with no differentiation between whether we are talking uranium halo or polonium halo. And we just need them some time in the last 3+ billion (10^9) years ...
All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. And have also been published later ... Collins, L.G. (1997), "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite", in Hunt, C. W., Collins, L. G., and Skobelin, E. A., Expanding Geospheres, Energy And Mass Transfers From Earth’s Interior, Calgary: Polar Publishing Company, pp. 128-140, .
quote: Published. Refutes Gentry. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Johnfolton, don't you ever get tired of going out to those creationist websites and searching out information supporting a young earth only to have it totally eviscerated on this forum?
Doesn't it ever occur to you that your sources are lying to you? And that you don't have the background to tell where and how? And that you don't know a good argument from a bad one when you post them here proudly? Only to see them eviscerated? It would be far more effective if you studied the subject in some depth, and not just on the creationist websites. You would then have some idea of the validity of those things you post. You may believe they are true because they agree with your a priori beliefs, but that doesn't make them true or correct. No answer really required. Your posts speak for themselves. Consider this a rhetorical post. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The problem is not that radon diffuses but that were talking micropores in granite and radon as it decays to polonium it needs to precipitate in the exact center of the halo that requires billions more to form the concentric 218 ring. right?
If a billion more were decaying slightly off center Gentry has it that it would not be concentric but a smudged image. right? You need long periods of time with exact points of depositions of polonium from radon decaying precipitating polonium out of solution to support your old earth. It sounds like your trying to sell snake oil. Note: Gentry has good reason to believe its Primordial polonium for one there is no evidence of uranium at the halo's center, the image is not smudged. right? With radon gas in solution its trapped within granite. right? It can only precipitate into polonium all over the place within the granite and not a precise particular point. Gentry seems to be saying this is not possible radon trapped or as a gas too mobile, etc... this is why you see no radon halo's is because they are not decaying at any particular spots within granite. right? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Doesn't it ever occur to you that your sources are lying to you? Does it bother you that I believe your sources are lying to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Doesn't it ever occur to you that your sources are lying to you?
Does it bother you that I believe your sources are lying to you? But this is off-topic, and I won't be responding to any more such statements from you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024