|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Good luck, Coyote, with this guy.
Gamma radiation is said to be highly absorbable especially with high atomic number and density materials and believed the exited part of the nucleus energy thats expelled as gamma radiation when an alpha particle is expelled. Its how scientists are proposing remedial accelerated decay patents of nucleur wastes. Except that this doesn't accelerate decay RATES. Nuclear reactions caused by gamma ray bombardment are not decay. Another way you can force "decay" to occur is through nuclear reactions, like bombs. That doesn't change the RATE of decay. In fact the rates of decay of the radioactive material in Oklo 2 billion years ago were the same as for these isotopes today. That doesn't leave you much time for "accelerated decay" to have impacted the age of the earth significantly. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : oklo added Edited by RAZD, : waswasiswere 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You need to study what decay is, whatever, before you can argue how it can be changed.
Would not a photon go into the atom as a whole ... Decay occurs from the inside out, and is not caused by outside stimulus, whether by photons, electrons, protons, gamma rays, or whatever. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You need to understand reality, whatever, not just use your fantasy view whenever it suits you, if you want to discuss science.
Well you have to prove photons don't affect the nucleus inducing from the inside out. No. I. Don't. Why? Because ANY excitation from an external source IS NOT DECAY. It is a nuclear reaction caused by the excitation. Radioactive decay - Wikipedia
quote: Nuclear reaction - Wikipedia
quote: They are different processes, and no amount of hand waving denial or pretend alternate scenarios will change that fact. Decay happens on it's own from inside the nucleus, nuclear reactions occur with input from outside the nucleus. Causing any number of nuclear reactions has absolutely NO effect on the natural rate of decay of the isotope. Simple. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ned et al.
What we are talking about is changing the decay RATE for a specific isotope. No → Ni + p + e The original isotope/element ejects a particle and energy and becomes a different isotope/element, one with less mass and less energy. This decay occurs spontaneously for radioactive isotopes, and is not triggered by external bombardment. When you send a particle into a nucleus, whatever that particle is, the equation is changed: No + po → Nj + e Nj may then decay or not (see bluejay's post), but it is a different isotope\element from either No or Ni, so this subsequent decay of Nj does not change the decay RATE of No. The subsequent decay, IF it occurs, of Nj will be according to the decay RATE for that isotope\element, and the products of that decay will be those of Nj and not of No. Johnfolton is just playing a shell-game, the old hide-the-pea shuck and jive, instead of talking about actual decay RATES. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It does not change the number of protons nor neutrons in the center of the nucleus. It does increase the energy in the inside of the nucleus. right? And it STILL does not change the rate of decay of any isotope of any element. Scientists LOOKED for ways that the decay rate might change. FromDepartment of Geosciences | Baylor University quote: They could not find any way that significantly changed decay rates.
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. remainder of original message hidden -see Message 20 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : partial redirect 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 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Original message hidden -see Message 20 Edited by RAZD, : redirected
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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! 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. Original message hidden -see Message 20 Edited by RAZD, : redirected 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 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. Original message hidden -see Message 22 Edited by RAZD, : redirected Edited by RAZD, : again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there an existing polonium thread where I can copy his Message 46 and move my Message 60 to so he can "answer"?
Found -see Message 20 Edited by RAZD, : mor Edited by RAZD, : enjoy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024