|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Where is your evidence that accelerated decay would change the energy of the alpha particle affecting ring diameter, etc...? The graph that you saw in post #7, you drooling goober!! At least make a tiny effort here, Whatever! "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
you drooling goober!
Your point is made without these words. If you can't resist that kind of thing with this poster and you don't want to be suspended for a short time then I suggest you ignore him. It should be clear by now that this poster is impervious to learning, why waste more time if you are letting it get to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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
Evidence for a Young World
| Answers in Genesis
404 Not Found
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
It is very speculative to say, “Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay”
Here are some of Gentry’s data taken from:Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification “More sensitive IMMA measurements on these U radiocenters revealed 238U/206Pb ratios (15) of approximately 2230; 2520; 8150; 8300; 8750; 18,700; 19,500; 21,000; 21,900; and 27,300 (again corrected for different ionization efficiencies).” “Compared to a 238U halo radiocenter, a 210Po halo inclusion should contain much less 238U (perhaps none at all) and much more of the 210Po decay product 206Pb. The IMMA analyses of Po halo inclusions showed that the 238U content was low, the 238U/206Pb ratios varying from 0.001 to 2.0.” There are halos with 238U/206Pb ratios as low as 0.001, as high as 27300. If a creationist has the liberty to speculate accelerated decay when explaining the low ratio of 0.001, an evolutionist also has the liberty to speculate ”decelerated decay’ to explain the high ratio of 27300. Instead of speculating, why not just say, “I am not intelligent enough to analyze the data and determine the time when these halos formed.”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: So, what decay rate does Gentry use for his Po-halos? How did he choose that number and how much does it differ from 'evolutionary science' estimates? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
There are halos with 238U/206Pb ratios as low as 0.001, as high as 27300. If a creationist has the liberty to speculate accelerated decay when explaining the low ratio of 0.001, an evolutionist also has the liberty to speculate ”decelerated decay’ to explain the high ratio of 27300. Sounds like Gentry in your article is talking about coal not zircons in rock? Leaching (biblical flood likely) explains the high ratio in coal. Snelling in respect to orphans was about whats found in zircons in rocks. Leaning Gentry was just showing halo's exists too in coal. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Even though the biological fossil record has been extensively documented, the rather abundant fossil record of radiohalos that exists in the coalified wood from the Colorado Plateau has remained virtually undeciphered. Jedwab (1) and Breger (2) have determined some important characteristics of such halos; in fact, earlier (1, 2) as well as present investigations on these samples (3) agree that: (i) the microscopic-size radiocenters responsible for halos (Fig. 1a) in coalified wood are actually secondary sites that preferentially accumulated -radioactivity during an earlier period of earth history when uranium-bearing solutions infiltrated the logs after they had been uprooted; Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
So, what decay rate does Gentry use for his Po-halos? How did he choose that number and how much does it differ from 'evolutionary science' estimates? The link Peaceharris gave in respect to Genty makes it sound like Gentry is a creationists and does not share uniformitists beliefs that uniformitists share in respect to the age of the earth. P.S. Maybe Peaceharris knows the "number" your looking for and if Gentry uses a "number" that differ's from evolutionarism's? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
How do you explain squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos and no evidence of the parent element? You might want to read the first two sentences of this thread again, JF.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
JF wrote:
quote: He is, indeed, a creationist. What's funny is that he uses the decay rates calculated by old-earth geologists. Uniformitarian geologists. So are decay rates constant, or not? Gentry tells us no on one hand and yes with the other. Does that strike you as odd? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks peaceharris, for your help.
Please keep in mind that this thread is intended (see Message 1) to talk about uranium halos and exclude talk about polonium (feel free to start a topic if you wish). In particular, the question is whether uranium halos: (1) show that the energy of alpha particle decay has not changed while the halos are formed (otherwise ring would be blurred or have some different diameters). (2) because the energy of alpha particles is a result of the decay rate of an isotope, this means that the decay rate has not changed while the halos are formed. (3) therefore the halos are several hundred million years old. Thanks, and Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Joe, nice to see you back and posting again. I've been reading your thread, and it is interesting stuff to this amateur geologist/naturalist.
So are decay rates constant, or not? That is the big question here, and what I can see so far is that the decay rates are tied to the energy the alpha particle ends up with when it tunnels through the Coulomb wall\barrier, so that if one changes the other must also change. Are there other variables? Would there be other effects (atoms falling apart)? Thanks, and Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
RAZD writes: therefore the halos are several hundred million years old. After Gentry made erroneous calculation based on the ratio of Pb206:U238, he wrote, "Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb (15), these 238U/206Pb ratios raise some questions. For example, if the 238U/206Pb = 27,300 value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter, this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age" -quote from Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification I have already explained that is erroneous to do calculations based solely on Pb206:U238. Tree suck ground water, and coal is from trees. Here is a quote regarding ground water fromhttp://de.scientificcommons.org/23859804 "Extremely variable and elevated U-234/U-238 ratios (of 2-12) are characteristic." If there is a lot of U234, U234 also will decay to Pb206. So in either case, whether someone chooses to neglect U234 or whether he wants to be more accurate without neglecting U234, the conclusion is that U halos do not in any way prove an old earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Razd said: That is the big question here, and what I can see so far is that the decay rates are tied to the energy the alpha particle ends up with when it tunnels through the Coulomb wall\barrier, so that if one changes the other must also change. The Alpha particle sometimes its said leaves the radioactive nuclei in an excited state. The excess energy your talking about is removed by the emission of a gamma ray from the alpha particle!
Razd said: If the decay rates had changed we would not have Uranium halos, because the energy of the alpha particles would change WITH the change in decay rate, and the resulting rings would NOT be at the correct diameter, if they weren't smeared to much to see. Actually given excess energy from the alpha particle is released by a gamma ray. Interestingly its the lack of smearing that suggests polonium halo's are caused from primordial polonium instead of radon gas being the parent of polonium halo's. Its all right back to the lack of a parent. Orphan? and alpha exicitations energy instead being released by the alpha particle itself releasing a gamma ray? If the earth was an old one you should be seeing halo smearing which would be the result if polonium halos parent was not primordial polonium but mobile radon gas. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Alpha particles are emitted by radioactive nuclei such as uranium or radium in a process known as alpha decay. This sometimes leaves the nucleus in an excited state, with the emission of a gamma ray removing the excess energy. Alpha particle - Wikipedia 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT POLONIUM
SHEESH.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks peaceharris.
So in either case, whether someone chooses to neglect U234 or whether he wants to be more accurate without neglecting U234, the conclusion is that U halos do not in any way prove an old earth. Let's stick to the simple parts first: this is not about radiometric dating methods, but about the simple decay of uranium causing a steady stream of alpha particles that damage the surrounding rock at diameters directly proportional to their (present day) energy levels. The consistency of these rings is not dependent on any correction or dating methodology, it is just a simple fact, bedded in the rocks. There is no change in the alpha particle energies that form the uranium rings in all the time that it takes to form the rings. We don't need to date the uranium halos to know that they are old: the decay rates for those rings unique to the long half-life isotopes in the uranium decay series, and the large number of impacts necessary to form a visible ring means that de facto the rings are several hundred million years old (a drop in the bucket for geological time, but too old for any YEC mythology). It's simple evidence of an old earth, no rocket science corrections necessary. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024