polonium halos

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, So rather than deal with the evidence provided by the pictures taken by Gentry, you accuse me of fraud?You do realize that you could duplicate what I did if you think I changed those pictures in any way other than to match their size for the outer Po bands. And yet he ALSO did not find evidence of such "alpha recoil" along the fissures where you have your "staining" (which btw is not constrained to a "tube" anymore than it is to a halo, as the fissures are planar, not lines)?It seems to me that his testing was inconclusive: it is difficult to "prove" a negative, and all he "proved" was that his test came up empty where he was looking. He could be missing the evidence in front of him -- just like the picture of the 222Rn halo of his that is posted on your cited website. It is in several places, one is the 238U truncated halos, where the 222Rn left the inclusion, and another is in the 222Rn halos you deny exist even when looking at a picture of one. Where the cracks and fissures are large enough to have flow of 222Rn (and various daughter isotopes) in significant quantities, then yes, you will see an accumulation of decay stains away from the plane of the fissures and cracks into the rock. This, of course is magnetudes greater amounts of decay than is required to build a halo.Likewise much much less volume is required for any fissure that can deliver a 222Rn atom to a void area every thousand years or so (all that is needed to make a 222Rn halo with the density of bands seen on 238U halos). The net staining is in a direction perpendicular to the fissure, but if you like I'll just say in a direction AWAY from the fissure: it still makes your argument that "Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy" a false one -- the alpha particles penetrate the rock completely unaffected by the direction of any fluid flow. Do you know what that staining would look like from above the plane of the fissure? Gentry:

quote:

---

(g) Embryonic 238U halo in fluorite with only two rings developed.

---

Gentry: It is, very simple. Any place with "concentrated" radioactive particles can cause a halo formation. Flow rates change with the amount of opening along the fissures and cracks, and radiation is a time delay phenomena. Keep a particle in one place just long enough and it will decay there. But it doesn't need to be there before it decays, nor does it need to stay afterward.Take a shot glass and fill it with water, suspend a tube over it set to drip into the glass of water. When one drop falls into the glass a different drop spills over the side. The volume of water in the tube is based on the size of the tube and it's length, but the amount of water in the glass is much much greater than the volume in the tube. The other end of the tube is a bucket - emulating your 238U inclusion/s that provide the 222Rn. Let's say the flow in the tube takes 2 days to reach the end and drip into the glass. How long before that particular drop of water spills over the side?It is, indeed, very simple. Fission is the breaking up of a radioactive atom into two or more nuclii larger than an alpha particle, often close to 50-50 split of the 238U atom. This is what causes fission tracks. The flow of 222Rn does not create fission tracks, nor does the flow carrying any daughter isotopes of 222Rn. Such atoms, once free of the uranium inclusion due to the gas phase of 222Rn, especially behaving as an inert gas not bounded to anything, are free to float in any flow that passes without leaving traces at all ... until they decay. Yes, it seems the only way you can deal with the evidence in front of you is to deny that it exists, to hide it, to try to make it go away, and to accuse the person who shows you the picture of fraud.Sadly, this is typical of behavior of people confronted with evidence that contradicts their belief: it is called cognitive dissonance. Anyone confronted by contradictory evidence will experience cognitive dissonance - the dissonance caused by the conflict between belief and evidence - and there are several ways to resolve the conflict, one of which is to fit the evidence into a revised world belief system, another is to reject the evidence. And yet all I have done is scaled up pictures that Gentry took and that your cited website posted. As noted, all you need to do is repeat the process if you don't believe this: take the two pictures and adjust the magnification to where the two outer rings match diameters and then look at what the inner ring shows.I used MSPaint, which is why there was some loss of clarity. You can also deceive yourself if you try hard enough. Curiously that does not affect the evidence:

quote:

---

(A) GENTRY (1974): "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective"
Science, vol. 184, pp. 62-66, April 5, 1974.
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective

​

(h) Normally developed 238U halo in fluorite with nearly all rings visible.

---

quote:

---

Uranium halos in fluorite in different stages of development: ... (c) - (d) ” Fully developed; ...

​

---

quote:

---

(a) - (h) ” 218Po halos in fluorite; ...

​

---

Those are Gentry's pictures, direct from your cited website. The widths of the bands match between the 238U halo and the 222Rn halo (that is labeled a "218Po" halo), for the 218Po band, for the 214Po band, and for the area covered by 222Rn and 210Po bands.I can also put these pictures into autocad (where all I can do with bitmap\jpeg pictures is scale them), and then set them to the proper diameters for those outer two rings and measure the next one in on both these halos: want to make any bets on what the cad program says they are?Enjoy.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

How do you know? Have you ever observed granite formed within minutes? Has any scientist? Is it observable and repeatable. It is a hypothesis that the granites formed with slow cooling.Actually most if not all attempts a making a synthetic granite from magma with slow cooling have produced fine grains. I don't know of any experiments that have produced large grains. But I'm no geologist.By the way, Gentry for over twenty years now has challenged the scientific community to falsify his primordial Polonium theory by producing a synthetic piece of large grained granite with one Po218 halo in it. I susspect many have tried, but none have published. It should be a rather simple experiment. Take a piece of biotite, melt it, cool it however fast or slow that you want, and put it into an environment with an abundance of U238 isotopes. Voila, you should be able to erase Gentry off the map. But nobody has accepted the falsification challenge.

AOKid, would you care to explain the difference between extrusive and intrusive rocks? What makes a rock granite, instead of obsidian?

Nope, I don't want to explain any of this. I am trying to avoid off topic red herring arguments.Wiki has a good article on this if you want to learn more.Granite - Wikipedia

I would bet anyone here with a little understanding of rock formation would say that it is very much on topic. Furthermore, your replies in this topic have shown a lack of understanding of basic geology. Maybe you shoud read that article AOKid
Try these too:
Intrusive - Wikipedia
Extrusive rock - WikipediaEdited by dokukaeru, : Added wiki quote

If you want to make an argument or present some evidence in this forum then do it. I will not respond any more to your irrelevant comments.

To get coarse grains one would have to simulate the temp & pressure of the depths where granite forms.From the article you posted Ther has been to my knowlege any attempts to form arificial granite under these conditions.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

You dont respond to anything AOKid whether it is relevant or not, so much so that the "O" in your screenname should stand for hole.So AholeKid, is granite a course grained, fine grained, medium grained, perhaps no grained rock? What makes the crystal size larger? These question are relevant. Without an understanding of what makes granite or how it is formed, it is highly unlikely that you understand what RAZD has said about Po/Ra rings in the uranium decay chain.I think this is the same reason you try and attack the credibilty of Wakefield and others while at the same time presenting Gentry as an authority. Gentry favours your worldview, so he must be truthful. You fail to understand Gentry is not presenting any evidence or conclusion that the Po rings are from primordial Po and not from U. Every time RAZD shows you evidence to the contrary you baselessly claim it is false, or just ignore it.In Message 86 I thought you were finally going to get around to answering Wakefield's claims that RAZD present: but instead you presented this garbage in Message 91 and then claimed Wakefield cannot possibly be right because he is a self taught geologist. At the same time you largely ignored RAZD's Message 87, Message 88, Message 89, and Message 90. If you cannot answer these simple questions about intrusive/extrusive rock and granite formation: you certainly have no buisness arguing Gentry's asinine assertions of primordial po.Edited by dokukaeru, : No reason given.

Is this the level of mature discussion the admins want in EVC forum? If you would like to make an argument about granites, then please do so. If you would like to present some evidence about why Gentry is wrong, then please do so.All of the answers to your questions are in the wiki article I cited previously. It's up to you to put forth evidence and argumentation as to why Gentry is wrong. For some reason you apparently like to ask questions. If you think you know the answers better than I or wiki then please state your argument.

Thanks RAZD,I need your help. I am woking on providing some new evidence. They will be jpegs from my pc. I see you uploaded some directly to an EVC folder. How can I post mine?Thanks

---

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

Please, let's stick to the discussion, and not resort to name calling and gratuitous insult, these type of comments don't add anything worth wasting bandwidth on.

Your welcome AlphaOmegaKid, There are several websites that host free picture posting: do a google. Alternatively contact admin for what they can suggest.One source you may be interested in is
Herb Allure - Nature's Sunshine (NSP) Distributorsthey have an E/vs/C forum as well (but not as good as here)
Creation vs Evolution - The Orbis Vitae Communityand they also have a picture hosting capacity where you can resize pictures and they even provide the ubb code for posting the pictures (that also works here).There are also a number of sites like ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs that have free picture hosting.Remember that evidence can be provided to support almost any position you care to discuss (flat maps show that the earth is flat, for instance), the trick is to deal with all the evidence. This includes

• 238U halos that take hundreds of millions of years to form,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn flowing in the rocks from the absence from Gentry's "embryonic" 238U halos,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the pervasive "staining" on larger fissures and cracks,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the absence of Po halos without nearby uranium or thorium inclusions,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the presence of wide 222Rn/210Po rings, especially in fluorite where gaps can even be distinguished, just as Gentry sees in the 238U "nearly complete" halos,
• it includes the evidence that the rocks where these halos are observed were subject to secondary processes, and
• it includes the evidence that the rocks come from many different age formations from Precambrian to Tertiary ...

quote:

---

The Tertiary geological time interval covers roughly the time span between the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and beginning of the most recent Ice Age, approximately 65 million to 1.8 million years ago.

---

It means dealing with evidence like this: I may get to putting these into autocad tomorrow.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved photosEdited by RAZD, : sp, added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Just a note:I've just been banned from the Herb Allure - Nature's Sunshine (NSP) Distributors site, so I can't access my pictures there anymore. Some other site that is less emotional\paranoid\arbitrary would likely be better (Russ is big on conspiracy theories).Enjoy.

I called your "evidence" faudulent, because it is fraudulent. Alteration of pictrues is clear evidence of fraud in most court cases, especially when you are dealing with diameters in the microns as with these Po and U halos. You presented no diametrical measurements with your alterations, so you presented no valid evidence.So I will expose your fraud by taking these pictures into a CAD program without alteration. Then I will establish a base diameter from a best fit circle of the inside halo which is always the clearest and most visible. Then I will add the other halo circles based on Gentry's measurements. (actual data)This is the Po218 Halo in Fluorite: The data was taken from here:Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective: Table 1.As the data specifies the very clear outer diameter of the inside halo is .0197mm. The theoretical ring of Rn222 would be .0205mm in diameter and is non existent on this photo. The scaled Po218 circle matches perfectly and the scaled Po214 which is faintly visible matches well also.Now according to your fraudulent representation of this image, we would have the following situation... Now according to you, the Rn222 and Po210 rings are visible. If that were true then the outside diameter of the center ring would be .0205 for Rn222. The other ring circles were then scaled accordingly. First you can see that the Po218 and Po214 circles are smaller than the measured values of Gentry et al. Notice that the Po210 circle should be visible towards the inside of the Rn222 ring. There is no definable ring diameter there. In fact the dark areas are not indicative of another isotope, but are indicative of more dense alpha decay in those areas from the Po210. To summarize, your fraudulent representation doesn't match the data at all.Now let's examine the U238 halo in Fluorite.... Using Gntry's measurements again and scaling the circles from the inner halo you can see that all of the halos are visible and matches the data.Now it should also be noted that all of the Halo pictures in fluorite have been enhanced by Gentry by He ion bombardment and contrast imaging. That is because the images don't photograph well in the clear fluorite.The microscopic images in fluorite are much clearer than those in biotite. However the picture images in biotite are much clearer than those in fluorite. You can do the same scaling on Po218 halos in biotite and the diameters match perfectly with the data.This is why scientists like Henderson, Sparks, Gentry, and Meiers all agree on the measurements and the identification that these are indeed Po218 halos. The only people portraying contrary hypotheses (RAZD, Brawley and Wakefield)must exclude the data from their images to fraudulently make their case. This is a fraudulent TalkOrigins web scam and it needs to be exposed like Haeckel was eventually.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Do you see the picture above? Do you see the faint ring on the right hand side? That ring is the evidence of Rn222 decay. Do you notice how large the radio center is? That's why it is embryonic.An embryonic halo is one where the radio center is much larger, so the Uranium at the center has for the most part not decayed yet due to the long half life. This is obviously visible from the photograph. A fully developed uranium halo is one with a small radiocenter in which enough time has elapsed that enough atoms have decayed to create the other rings.An embryonic halo is not evidence in any way shape or form that the Rn222 gas has escaped. In fact, the photo shows Rn222 rings in the process of being formed. No scientist is suggesting that the Rn222 gas is escaping from this halo. Only you are.The source of free Rn222 gas in the granites is not from encapsulated halo forming uranium particles. The source of Rn222 gas is from cracks and fissures where uranium has been carried and, is open in the crack or fissure. These situations provide staining evidence and alpha decay evidence, but no halo evidence.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : took out a harsh statement