John S
Gentry’s work with polonium halos is based on the premise that rates of radioactive decay have been constant. If decay rates have varied, then his work is invalidated.
In our sceanrio there are various points at which decay was accelrated presumably to generate catastrophic tectonic activity (creation day 3 and the flood).
the diameter of those halos, which he said is directly proportional to the energy of the decay of the isotope that formed the halo (the greater the energy the larger the halo).
Agreed
He said that the energy released by the decay of particular isotopes of polonium would form halos with the same diameter as the halos in his samples, and therefore that the halos in his samples formed through the decay of polonium.
Agreed
If radioactive decay rates have changed, then the energy associated with the decay events has changed, and if that’s the case his identifications are invalid.
Not necessarily. The pop-out rate may change but the energies may stay the same. This may or may not be possible and we await the RATE guys theoretical work. Regardless, Gentry's creation granite may be at a time point during normal decay rates.
So, contrary to Gentry’s claim there is a source for the polonium in his samples. Further, Po210, 214, and 218 all occur after radon222 in the decay series, and since radon’s a gas, not only is there a source for the polonium, there’s a source that’s capable of migrating through the rocks where he collected his samples.
It's possible that Gentry's stuff is wrong, I agree. I don't kow enough about it and I hope you understand that I would like to read his rebuttals (anybody know if they are on the web?).
Nevertheless, Gentry is also responsible for the early helium retention work whihc is what I was actually alluding to. I am unaware whether halos are involved in that or not.
™ Version 4.2
