|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: polonium halos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Wouldn't it have been easier to Google or Google Scholar Mr (Dr?) Baillieul to see what his geological creditentials are? Alternatively you could go to Amazon and you'll find eight or so publications there relating to uranium geology. It seems he is a retired geologist, painter and member of the UU church. Mr. not Dr. as represented by Talk Origins. His resume is hereweb page resume His resume makes no mention of geological experience except his MS in Geology. His claim to fame is clearly artistry not geology. I guess anyone can write a Talk Origins citation for evos to quote the scriptures from. He still has a suspicious email address, and I suspect he is falsly being represented by Talk Origins. Again, I will restate, this guy is still a spurious expert, and he clearly has not refuted Gentry in any scientific way. Now in regards to Andrew Snellings falsification of Gentry, you can note that his article is not peer reviewed either. And the two cited articles that you claimed to be peer reviewed are just more of Snellings non peer reviewed material. He was citing himself. I don't want to get side tracked on the ICR Gentry debate. Gentry does an excellent job of exposing the fallacies here: Open Letter to ICR: Are Granites Primordial? by R. V. Gentry. Table of Contents. It's very lengthy, and I won't discuss it unless you can demonstrate that you have read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Mr. not Dr. as represented by Talk Origins. Where was this? I could only find one instance of anyone referring to him as Dr, and that was hidden away in an archive of old feedback posts.
His claim to fame is clearly artistry not geology Is fame now a requirement? He seems to have worked in the geological field for the US Department of Energy for some time, perhaps he just didn't do the sort of academic research that focuses on publication as its raison d'etre.
Again, I will restate, this guy is still a spurious expert, and he clearly has not refuted Gentry in any scientific way. You keep stating it, but that isn't the same as making a case. Does whether Baillieul is or isn't a doctor make any difference to the validity of his arguments? Have you shown anything other than that he is an artist? Does this exclude him also being/ having been a geologist? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
An amusing diatribe, AlphaOmegaKid.
Curiously those ad hominen words are your exact metaphor from your skeptic/creationist dialogue..
RAZD writes: Creationist: boy the polonium evidence must be good or you wouldn't be working so hard to prove it wrong .... Skeptic: it amuses me to see the mental gymnastics that people use to avoid admitting that reality has shown certain beliefs to be invalid. I guess if you are feeling that this rather generic statement is an ad hominem then you must agree that Dr Gentry, and by extension you, are ignoring evidence. Otherwise it would not apply.
Now to credibility....
RAZD writes: The facts are that Gentry's credentials ARE questionable:"Polonium Haloes" Refuted quote: Which is still true.
Yes let's look at those "credible???" credential facts. You quote an article by Thomas A. Baillieul who doesn't once challenge Gentry's credentials. The reason he doesn't do this is because "Thomas A Baillieul" doesn't seem to have any credentials himself. Looks like you are putting a lot of effort into discrediting the messenger and ignoring the message: Gentry is still not a Ph.D. and he still is not a geologist. On the other hand, with a little help you found your mysterious geologist:
msg 76 writes: His resume is hereweb page resume His resume makes no mention of geological experience except his MS in Geology. His claim to fame is clearly artistry not geology. Which is still more than Gentry's qualifications in either of those fields. It appears he is a retired geologist now doing art - all the awards are 2000 and later, which leaves some 25 years for a career as a geologist since graduation. As pointed out by Joe T he has several books to his name as a geologist listed on Amazon.com:
quote: And a number of peer-reviewed articles as well, among the articles listed by Google scholar:
quote: It certainly seems that he knows geology in general and radioactive rock geology in particular. He HAS done field studies in geology and published papers on that work, so that makes him qualified to talk about Gentry's lack of proper protocol in doing field work.
Next you quote Collins:
quote:Now RAZD, Collins does not call Gentry's credentials into question does he? He only calls his reasoning into question. Actually he does. Politely - notice that he does NOT say that Gentry is a competent geologist. He says, rather, that Gentry has the geology all wrong. Gentry is making statements about the geology that he is not qualified to say.
And finally you fallaciously appeal to Cavediver as your next authority against Gentry. Cavediver's credentials are nothing more than an assertion. He's an anonymous person with an anonymous occupation on his profile. Curiously the authority that Cavediver has on this forum is not based on his assertion of being a physicist, but on his actions: his words and his posts, together with those of others, form a cohesive whole that would not stand up to the scrutiny of others if he were a phony.
Why don't you admit that Gentry has good credentials, and he has met the hurdles of peer-review on multiple occations. Instead, you bring up fictitious Talk Origins writers, anonymous EVC forum authoritarians, and other non-credible unpublished geologists as evidence. Perhaps because the actions of Gentry speak louder than the words published, even those in peer-reviewed articles. He doesn't get the geology correct, and as far as I know he has taken NO measures to correct that oversight. Wakefield demonstrated that he made mistakes in his geology ("A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks."). Note that this article (The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery") was originally published in the May 1988 Iissue of the Journal of Geological Education, a peer-reviewed journal ("The Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) is the premier peer-reviewed publication for geoscience education research at the undergraduate and pre-college levels."). These failings are listed in many places, and whether they are in peer-reviewed documents or not, they DO come from people qualified to talk about his shortcomings and his mistakes.
Whom should I believe? You, or Gentry. My money is on Gentry right now. Strangely, WHAT you should believe is the question not WHO. Creationists always seem to put more emphasis on WHO that WHAT, one of the reasons for their ever popular quote-mines and misrepresentations of what people said, rather that what the evidence says. WHAT you should believe is the evidence. Curiously you had your little rant defending the honor of Gentry (I'm sure he appreciates it), but you did not address the evidence that refutes Gentry at all. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Is fame now a requirement? He seems to have worked in the geological field for the US Department of Energy for some time, perhaps he just didn't do the sort of academic research that focuses on publication as its raison d'etre. Yes, I cited that post
Is fame now a requirement? No, I didn't claim it was. I am simply stating his own representation of himself on his resume. It is a fact.
Again, I will restate, this guy is still a spurious expert, and he clearly has not refuted Gentry in any scientific way. You keep stating it, but that isn't the same as making a case. Does whether Baillieul is or isn't a doctor make any difference to the validity of his arguments? Have you shown anything other than that he is an artist? Does this exclude him also being/ having been a geologist? No, what I have claimed is that he presents no evidence to support his talk origin article. Science does have a standard. You don't see me citing creationist websites unless they have peer reviewed material or unless someone else has referred them first. Why should evos be allowed to claim non-scientific material as science? Gentry has given a falsification proposal for his theory. It doesn't seem so difficult at all to falsify his work if what Collins and Baillieul claim is true. So why don't they do it? Making claims and assertions is not science, whether you have a BS, MS or PhD doesn't really matter. You have to have the evidence to back up those claims. RAZD hasn't produced any scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I noticed AlphaOmegaKid that you did not address the evidence issues in my earlier post, choosing instead to go on a rant about qualifications.
I'll break it down into smaller segments. From Message 73: First up, the "miracle" portion of Gentry's concept.
quote: Science is not done by appealing to miracles. Especially when perfectly valid science can be done to explain the same evidence without a single miracle. This is not theory but theology. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And again, AlphaOmegaKid, we have the issue of addressing the EVIDENCE that refutes Gentry.
Here's the next unanswered segment from Message 73: the evidence FOR radon-222 diffusion, even in Gentry's own photographs.
quote: You will notice that the picture in question is indeed a Gentry picture, and you will notice that indeed radon-222 and polonium-210 blend into a wider ring than polonium-214 and polonium-218 make when they are all formed as part of the uranium-238 halo (and complete decay series). You will note that this widening is the same as seen in Gentry's photo, thus demonstrating that radon-222 was necessarily involved. You will also notice that the evidence of uranium halos that are missing the radon-222 and down through the rest of the decay series, demonstrates unequivocally that radon gas does indeed diffuse in the rocks in question. Thus the evidence says the cause of the halos is continuation of uranium decay through displacement of radon gas in the rocks, and that there is no need to postulate "primordial polonium" to explain the halos, NOR do we need to invent whole new magical miracle physics to change decay rates.
Message 79 RAZD hasn't produced any scientific evidence. Curiously, ignoring the mountains of evidence, from Wakefield to India, does not make it go away. Evidence documented by scientists IS scientific evidence. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : end. Edited by RAZD, : moved photo 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
I appreciate all of your well written posts, but your fingers work a little quicker than mine. I will be very busy the next two days, and I really want to answer your questions. Please be patient, because I will reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey AlphaOmegaKid,
No problem, take all the time you need, learning processes do take time, gathering information does take time: I do not expect instant replies (in fact I suspect instant replies of not being well thought out or researched - and I appreciate the time you've taken). More on Gentry Credibility While you are working on your replies consider this little complication on the peer-reviewed issue: Frome Wakefield's (peer reviewed) article, The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery":
quote:(bold in the original) So he is not entirely candid on what is and is not published in peer-reviewed journals regarding his more contentious claims. Can you show where he claims in a peer-reviewed article that the earth is only 6000 years old or that the "...polonium halos in Precambrian granites identify these rocks as some of the Genesis rocks of our planet - created in such a way that they cannot be duplicated without intervention of the Creator." Now it seems to me that he has conflated his {freely stated} book position with his {carefully worded to pass peer review} articles to imply that his creationist position is supported by the peer review process. It isn't, he just left big questions hanging on the peer reviewed articles, questions that, typically are open to several solutions. That he does NOT distinguish between these two distinct positions calls his credibility into question imh(ysa)o. More on Missing "Primordial" Halos As noted previously, there are a number of isotopes that no longer exist on earth in a natural state because they all have short (less than ~9x10^8 years) half-lives (Wiens, 2002, p11-12): they have time-out; decayed below detectable levels; gone extinct. It certainly seems reasonable that IF we were dealing with "Primordial" rocks, as Gentry (in his book, not in his peer-reviewed articles) claims are "the Genesis rocks of our planet," that THEN we should see halos from some of these now extinct isotopes. Notice that some of the halos in his samples are Thorium-232 halos (as big a problem for him as the Uranium-238 halos for the same reason), and they have all their decay chain rings from Th-232 on down. In this case Radon-220 has a half-life of less than one minute, and that the daughter Polonium isotopes -212 and -216 do NOT make isolated halos. This article HYDROTHERMAL URANOTHORITE IN FLUORITE BRECCIAS FROM THE BLUE JAY MINE, JAMESTOWN' BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO talks about these Thorium halos and the associated Po-212 ring (there is a picture near the end). Where are these missing Polonium-212 and -216 halos? But also notice that Thorium-232 is a daughter of several of those extinct isotopes:
quote: And putting those together with all the ones we do know about from Thoriu-232 decay, we can arrange them by alpha particle energy = halo diameter (orange ones are the extinct isotopes):
quote:232Th :: :: 1.40510^10 a :: 4.08 Mev For reference the Radon-222 and Polonium-210 ring diameters are for
222Rn :: :: 3.8235 d :: 5.59 MeV If we use 0.20 MeV as the cut-off, several of these are near enough to other ring diameters that they would likely be blurred like the Radon-222 and Polonium-210 rings, however we have a couple that should show up as additional rings if we had "primordial" Thorium: a ring at 4.5 MeV, and one at 5.2 MeV, so there should be a total of 8 distinguishable rings corresponding to 4.0, 4.5-4.6, 5.2, 5.5, 5.8, 6.1-6.4, 6.9 and 9.0 MeV, with one of them, 6.1 to 6.4 MeV showing a very wide blurred ring. Where are these missing Thorium-232 parent isotope rings? There are four (4) basic decay chains:
quote: Where are these missing Neptunium series halos from any of these extinct isotope parents to Bismuth-209? Not only does the "Primodial Polonium" concept not explain the missing Po-212 and Po-216, but there are Po-211 and Po-215 isotopes from the Actinium series that are missing. Why do the "Primodial Polonium" halos only come from ONE out of four main decay chains? By the way: if you want to explore the numbers of isotopes of different elements, and see how many have extinct radioactive versions, an interesting website is this: http://ie.lbl.gov/education/isotopes.htm Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
All quotes from RAZD:
And again, AlphaOmegaKid, we have the issue of addressing the EVIDENCE that refutes Gentry. Yes let’s look at your so called EVIDENCE.
Here's the next unanswered segment from Message 73: the evidence FOR radon-222 diffusion, even in Gentry's own photographs.
In message 31 you show undocumented, unreferenced photographs and you claim they represent radon damage. This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. They were referenced, they came from Gentry. Message 31: When someone requests a reference, they don’t want an answer like “they came from Gentry.” I was requesting the website/paper/book/page # reference so I could examine the original picture. I did discover where your cited picture came from, and I will reveal it below.
quote: A prediction from ntskeptics . of course. This prediction is your evidence? Now let’s begin to unravel this strawman argument that only exists on evo-babbler websites. None of this talk of Radon halos is in any kind of scientific literature. Now I am going to go slow, so all the audience can understand this slight of hand strawman. When scientists talk about radiohalos they refer to them by the emitting particles (the parent element) at the center of the halo. When you have a U238 halo, there are uranium elements emitting the alpha decay from the center of the halo. The rings around the center identify the alpha decay chain that proceeds after the parent material decays into each successive decay chain ion. With a Po218 halo, Po218 must originally be at the center. When you look at mature uranium halos you will see a Po210 and Rn222 decay rings. The alpha decay energies of these two ions is very close, and one is a solid(Po210) and one is a gas (Rn222). The reason you have “fuzzy” rings where the Po210 ring and the Rn222 ring are is simply because in a mineral encapsulation the mineral damage from the alpha decay energy is about the same for the Rn222 as it is for the Po210. It is important to emphasize at this point that the alpha decay always emits from the center portion of the halo. That means that when Rn222 forms at the center, the Rn222 gas is not migrating, or being transported by any fluid mechanism. It is locked or encapsulated and it is undergoing alpha decay. Now we know this for a fact, because if the Rn222 was allowed to escape from the center, then you would not have the subsequent decay rings of Po218, Po214 and Po210. This is why no real scientist is even suggesting Rn222 halos. That would mean that a cavity large enough to encapsulate the Rn222 would be present and observable. It also means that this cavity would be substantially larger than the current observable radio centers, because Rn222 gas takes up much more space than the subsequent decay chain solids. That means that evidence of a cavity would be available in a Rn222 halo. It also means that the Rn222 gas must have been encapsulated in a very short time period also. But just what would that encapsulation mechanism be if the minerals weren’t molten? Now all of this is obvious to the evo-babblers, but they try and trick you with their slight of hand. I will demonstrate this by quoting from your citation . .. The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
quote: Now unfortunately we have a logical bait and switch, which most people won’t catch. Note the underlined sections. The first paragraph is correct in saying that the Po218 can fall out of solution. What it doesn't say is that by the time it falls out, it decays. Then he switches in paragraph 2 and says Rn222 falls out of solution. Wrong, if the Rn222 is mobile in solution, then it will remain mobile in solution unless something encapsulates it. Then the author switches again and he is back to Po218,214,210 taking up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. Well if that is true, then you will have Po218,Po214, and P210 halos. And the Po218 would not have time to "gather" in a lattice structure. The possibility of Rn222 halos doesn’t have a logical solution unless there is evidence of inclusions at the center. The mobility of the Rn222 must be constrained by the mineral to create a halo.So the only scientific logical conclusion is that these are Po218 halos and not Rn222 halos. This also means that there cannot be a “predicted” picture/drawing of a Radon222 halo. Now lets go to the “fuzzy” halo logic which is basically what you are arguing .
quote: Here's another view of the same picture:
quote: Same wide dark rings for polonium-210 and radon-222 instead of the narrow clear rings for the other isotopes in the decay series after radon-222. Now at first glance, I must admit that this is an impressive display of “EVIDENCE” . Do you see how ntskeptics purposesly altered the image to make this argument. And you rest on this evidence? The reason I asked for the actual citation of where the photos came from was because photos must be explained in context. Here is the original photo from Gentry . .
If you look there are eight Po218 halos in this photograph. TalkOrigin’s gif image is a cropped image of this fuzzy photograph which is then blown up. The cropping comes from the lower group of three halso together. No wonder your “EVIDENCE” is a little fuzzy. No wonder you and the other evo-babblers (non scientific) are promoting this stuff on the web. They know they can’t get it published, because the EVIDENCE shows it is a scam. Now if you want to look at really good photos of Po218 halos, just go here:Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Index Here are some good ones from biotite mica:
Now those aren’t so “fuzzy” are they? You see, in the seventies, photographic abilities with microscopes were horrible compared to today’s. By Gentry’s 1986 2nd edition book, the photo capabilities were much better. But I guess if you crop an out of focus picture, and then blow it up, you can make people believe anything. That’s the real definition of MAGIC by the way. Now keep in mind that Gentry didn’t just use a microscope and ring measurements to identify these halos. He used several other scientific techniques which I will discuss later in this forum. So in conclusion, your “EVIDENCE” isn’t evidence at all. These are not the improbable (if not impossible)Rn222 halos that evo-babblers claim. And Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t very fuzzy, was he? Now if you want EVIDENCE, you may want to visit Gentry's website. He has identified over 100,000 of these halos. And even if you could show problems with the Po218 halos, you still couldn't explain why there are Po210 halos with no possibility of Rn222 precursor. Gentry presents evidence of Po218,214, and 210 halos in the same mica sections. Your problems don't go away, so please stop invoking MAGIC! form the evo-babblers as your evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Gentry proposes the thoery of a maximum of three singularities to account for the U and T halos and other phenomena. Now you may not like this hypothesis, because known physics laws can be violated in a singularity. However, let me remind you that this is exactly what is promoted by mainstream science in the BBT (the uniformitarian creation model). A singularity in which the known laws of physics and quantum mechanics breaks down. A singularity is the point where the *theory* breaks down. It is not a signal that you can introduce fairies. You cannot pose a singularity *as a theory*. This is complete nutball territory, and again shows that Gentry, if he is indeed claiming this, has no grasp of fundemental physics. Do you have the peer-reviewed reference for where Gentry makes these claims?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Please provide documented, peer reviewed evidence that Radon222 is in the Polonium halos. There is none. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences quote: So you get blurring of ALL rings from large inclusions, because the source atoms are in different enough locations to cause have overlapping patterns, and you get blurring between 234U, 230Th and 226Ra because they are so similar in energy/radius, AND you get blurring from 222Rn and 210Po because they are so similar in energy/radius. What you end up with is wider rings for 234U/226Rn/230Th and 222Rn/210Po than you do for 214Po, 218Po, or 238U. Yes, but this is blurring of rings. In all U and Th halos, you will get blurring of rings. The challenge was to produce evidence that Rn222 exists in the Po218 halos. There is none. This is a magical strawman argument trying to confuse rings with halos. If a Rn222 halo was possible the radio center would be much larger than a Po218 center, because Rn is a gas and takes up much more volume that Po218. This cavity would also be visible under microscopic examination.
Because the inclusion doesn't change size during decay - unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes You are being foot loose and fancy free here aren't you? If the gaseous isotope escapes the inclusion, then it cannot radiate the alpha decay particles. You won't have a Rn222 ring, or any Po218,214,210 rings. Right?
it always has the same number of atoms involved in the decay series, the thickness of the rings should be consistent. But you just said "unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes". You are referring to Rn222. If any ions escape, then what prevents all the ions from escaping? You can't have this fallacy both ways. You have fallen prey to internet evo-babble.
Thus IF you have a halo with a wide 222Rn/210Po ring and thinner 214Po, 218Po rings, THEN you have radon-222 and polonium-210 overlapping each other exactly as they do in complete uranium halos. So, once again, where is the evidence of this in the so called Po218 halos? You don't have this in the Po218 halos. The reasons why are quite logical. You are trying to claim Rn222 encapsulation and Rn222 escape and mobility at the same time. Sorry. That's a fallacy.
If you have the exact same pattern of thin 214Po, thin 218Po and thick 222Rn/210Po rings without the inner 234U/226Rn/230Th or 238U, then you have a radon ring. Your evo-babble contradictory assertion does not make it so. That's why none of this stuff is peer reviewed.
Thus the evidence says the cause of the halos is continuation of uranium decay through displacement of radon gas in the rocks, and that there is no need to postulate "primordial polonium" to explain the halos, NOR do we need to invent whole new magical miracle physics to change decay rates. The only ones who have created magical miracles are the evo-babblers on the web which you have fallen prey to. First, there is NO EVIDENCE of Rn222 halos. Secondly, there is no model that makes Rn222 halos plausible. There is clear, unequivacle evidence that Po218 is encapsulated in the biotite. There is clear unequivocal evidence that Po210 is encapsulated in the biotite. Both ions have very short halflives. Far too short for any other means of mineral/silicate encapsulation other than a quick freeze of molten material.
Curiously, ignoring the mountains of evidence, from Wakefield to India, does not make it go away. Evidence documented by scientists IS scientific evidence. I, nor Gentry has ignored any evidence. You certainly cannot claim to have presented any. At best, you have presented a hypothetical Rn222 halo schematic from ntskeptics. Then you present their clearly demonstrated bait and switch magical show as an argument. Then you present a strawman argument about rocks from India which have U238 halos in them. This article cites Gentry several times for his expertise on the subject, and never once challenges any of Gentry's conclusions. The only person ignoring Po218, P210 halos in granites is you, and probably a whole bunch of others. Gentry for 20 years now has challenged the scientific community for an easy falsification of his hypothesis of instant creation. Produce a piece of granite with a Po218 or Rn222 or Po210 halo in it. That's how science works. Your evo-babble assertions are not scientific in any way shape or form. To continue that assertion just continues to weaken your whole argument. I will address Wakefield in an upcoming post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid,
A prediction from ntskeptics . of course. This prediction is your evidence? Now let’s begin to unravel this strawman argument that only exists on evo-babbler websites. None of this talk of Radon halos is in any kind of scientific literature. No, a prediction from Wakefields peer-reviewed article, which happens to be posted by ntskeptics. Here's another version of The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", where he lays out the evidence that is the basis for his theory, and where he develops his prediction from the theory:
quote: Notice that there are five (5) halos depicted even though there are eight (8) alpha decay events in the decay chain from U-238 to Pb-206, one for the Po-210 plus Rn-222 combination ring and another for the Ra-236 plus Th-230 plus U-234 combination ring. Notice that in Message 81 I gave you additional information from a published scientific journal article on uranium halos that showed this same information and a picture of a typical uranium halo with 4 of the 5 rings visible (the inner one is usually hard to find due to the accumulated damage to that area by all the decay events):
msg 81 writes: (Color added for empHAsis) CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences quote: So you get blurring of ALL rings from large inclusions, because the source atoms are in different enough locations to cause have overlapping patterns, and you get blurring between 234U, 230Th and 226Ra because they are so similar in energy/radius, AND you get blurring from 222Rn and 210Po because they are so similar in energy/radius. What you end up with is wider rings for 234U/226Rn/230Th and 222Rn/210Po than you do for 214Po, 218Po, or 238U. So this validates Wakefields information. Now we move on to his theory that the Rn-222 halo is obscured by the normal blurriness of alpha particle decay evident in ALL halo rings (Wakefield, 2004): First the theoretical Polonium halo with Radon included:
quote: Then the theoretical blurring of Po-210 and Ra-222 to the same degree as is seen in the outer halos (where there is no known duplication of sources):
quote: Because the normal amount of blurring overlaps and fills the space between Po-210 and Ra-222, only one wider than normal ring would be visible -- no matter how much you magnify the picture or increase the accuracy of the instrument making the pictures - because the blurring is in the rocks. This is also seen in the Uranium halos noted above, thus confirming that such overlapping blurring occurs. From this basis Wakefield predicted that the Polonium halos will show these wider bands for the overlapped Po-210 plus Rn-222 naturally blurred rings. Then he went out and tested his prediction against the rocks that Gentry (supposedly) used. We will come back to what he found later.
Now I am going to go slow, so all the audience can understand this slight of hand strawman. When scientists talk about radiohalos they refer to them by the emitting particles (the parent element) at the center of the halo. When you have a U238 halo, there are uranium elements emitting the alpha decay from the center of the halo. The rings around the center identify the alpha decay chain that proceeds after the parent material decays into each successive decay chain ion. With a Po218 halo, Po218 must originally be at the center. When you look at mature uranium halos you will see a Po210 and Rn222 decay rings. The alpha decay energies of these two ions is very close, and one is a solid(Po210) and one is a gas (Rn222). The reason you have “fuzzy” rings where the Po210 ring and the Rn222 ring are is simply because in a mineral encapsulation the mineral damage from the alpha decay energy is about the same for the Rn222 as it is for the Po210. And as demonstrated above, in a mature uranium halo you see five (5) rings, not eight (8), and you cannot distinguish a Rn-222 halo from a Po-210 halo - they are blurred into one wider ring. Because of this, the evidence for Radon in the halo is not a separate ring from Po-210, but a wider ring than seen on the other halos. So Wakefield went on a quest to find the source of Gentry's rocks (Wakefield, 2004):
quote:(Color added for empHAsis) Oops, there's that nasty credibility thing again.
quote: So the samples come from a secondary formation, after the granite had formed and cooled, and not from primordial precambrian rock as Gentry claimed.
quote: And the rocks were saturated with radioactive minerals.
quote:(Color added again for empHAsis) Wakefield found similar discrepancies for the other sites listed by Gentry:
quote: So Gentry has the wrong age and the wrong type of rocks, and he has the formation of those rocks wrong, and we haven't even gotten to the evidence yet.
It is important to emphasize at this point that the alpha decay always emits from the center portion of the halo. From the central inclusion or concentration area, which can vary in size, and the best halos (ie having the most distinct rings) are from small inclusions, whatever the radioactive parent source.
That means that when Rn222 forms at the center, the Rn222 gas is not migrating, or being transported by any fluid mechanism. It is locked or encapsulated and it is undergoing alpha decay. Yet this assertion is false, Radon is well known for penetrating rocks by the smallest of avenues -- it is an inert gas, so it is not chemically attracted to any other atoms and just needs the space for an atom to pass -- so, no, it is not encapsulated with the solid parent material, but free to roam by whatever avenues are available.
Now we know this for a fact, because if the Rn222 was allowed to escape from the center, then you would not have the subsequent decay rings of Po218, Po214 and Po210. Which is why the evidence of Uranium halos that are missing the Rn-222 and all daughter isotope emission rings, is evidence that in fact Radon moves freely into the rocks.
This is why no real scientist is even suggesting Rn222 halos. That would mean that a cavity large enough to encapsulate the Rn222 would be present and observable. Another false assertion. All that is needed is a volume larger than the micro-fissures common to crystals such as biotite. Because it is a gas it is subject to the physics of gasses, and this means that the partial pressure is equalized in the total volume occupied by the gas. Thus wherever you have more volume you will have more Radon gas. Consider this analogy: water is dripped onto a filter at the rate of one drop per day; the filter hold four drops of water before one falls off the bottom, also at the rate of one drop per day. Thus the average time spent on the filter is four (4) days. The four (4) drops do not have a large volume, just more than the volume along the supply line Now we compare this to Radon gas flowing through a crystal lattice along micro-fissures where it finds a place that is a small void, just large enough that the radon - on average - stays in the void space for four (4) days. If the flow rate is one atom in per day, the void does not need to be very big at all. If it takes one or two days for the Radon gas to reach this void from the source U-238 to Radium-236 decay chain source, and the void is just large enough to keep the Radon atom for an average of four (4) days, then the probability is extremely high that half of the atoms will decay to Po-218 while in that void space (half-life = 3.8235 days). Double the volume and you now have 3/4ths of the atoms likely decaying while in the void, and anything larger just increases the likelihood of decay (and also the volume from which the halo forms). Smaller is better for distinct halos, and it ie EASY to have very small void spaces big enough to delay Radon gas for short periods of time.
It also means that this cavity would be substantially larger than the current observable radio centers, because Rn222 gas takes up much more space than the subsequent decay chain solids. An atom is an atom, and the Radon-222 atom is only slightly larger than the Po-218 atom. The polonium is also capable of forming a chemical bond with the crystal lattice around the void area, thus it could easily be incorporated into the shell of the void, leaving the stage open for the next generation of Radon atoms to pass through and stay for the show.
That means that evidence of a cavity would be available in a Rn222 halo. It also means that the Rn222 gas must have been encapsulated in a very short time period also. But just what would that encapsulation mechanism be if the minerals weren’t molten? Simple physics of gasses and chemistry of chrystals. Strangely, it may actually be the short half-life of the Radon-222 isotope that is responsible for the concentration of enough atoms to form a halo.
Now all of this is obvious to the evo-babblers, but they try and trick you with their slight of hand. I will demonstrate this by quoting from your citation . .. Like calling people names? Next we'll have "evo-goggles" and the world wide conspiracy of all scientists to misrepresent reality. (gratuitous smiley for CTD's benefit).
Now unfortunately we have a logical bait and switch, which most people won’t catch. Note the underlined sections. The first paragraph is correct in saying that the Po218 can fall out of solution. What it doesn't say is that by the time it falls out, it decays. Then he switches in paragraph 2 and says Rn222 falls out of solution. No he says that at the moment it decays the atom falls out of solution, and we have ~3.10 min +/- (the half-life of Po-218) for it to end up on the crystal lattice or still be hanging around in the void volume. The next decay chain product is Pb-214 which has a half-life of 19.9 min and decays by β- decay to form Po-214 (alpha decay, 0.1643 ms half-life).
Then the author switches again and he is back to Po218,214,210 taking up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. Well if that is true, then you will have Po218,Po214, and P210 halos. On top of the Radon-222 halos, caused by the decay of Rn-222 while inside the void volume.
And the Po218 would not have time to "gather" in a lattice structure. Not all of it has to be incorporated, some may get flushed out of the void by the incoming flow before it gets a chance to set up house-keeping. All you need is enough to form the next halos, and once that occurs all those halos will have the same density.
The possibility of Rn222 halos doesn’t have a logical solution unless there is evidence of inclusions at the center. The mobility of the Rn222 must be constrained by the mineral to create a halo. So the only scientific logical conclusion is that these are Po218 halos and not Rn222 halos. And yet, as just demonstrated above, there is a very simple, very scientific, very logical explanation that relies on nothing more than the physics of gassed, the chemistry of crystals and the physics of the known decay chain, to cause the concentration of atoms sufficient to form Radon-222 halos together with the remaining α decay isotopes of the U-238 decay chain, Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210 (which overlaps the Rn-222 ring), resulting in three (3) rings, one wider than the others.
This also means that there cannot be a “predicted” picture/drawing of a Radon222 halo. The problems with this are that (a) this is already invalidated by the above argument, and (2) this is invalidated by the evidence of complete Uranium halos that show this same fuzzy wider ring for the Po-210 plus Rn-222 decay and we KNOW that Radon was involved in those. The argument AND the evidence show your assertion is false.
Now lets go to the “fuzzy” halo logic which is basically what you are arguing . Now at first glance, I must admit that this is an impressive display of “EVIDENCE” . Do you see how ntskeptics purposesly altered the image to make this argument. And you rest on this evidence? The reason I asked for the actual citation of where the photos came from was because photos must be explained in context. Here is the original photo from Gentry . . It seems to me that the evidence still holds up - we've gone from three (3) halos to eight (8) halos all showing the same pattern. Can you point out which ones of all those halos does not have a wider third-in ring? As far as I can see, every one of those eight (8) polonium halos in your picture show the same faint to really faint outer rings and wider, darker inner ring.
If you look there are eight Po218 halos in this photograph. TalkOrigin’s gif image is a cropped image of this fuzzy photograph which is then blown up. The cropping comes from the lower group of three halso together. No wonder your “EVIDENCE” is a little fuzzy. No wonder you and the other evo-babblers (non scientific) are promoting this stuff on the web. They know they can’t get it published, because the EVIDENCE shows it is a scam. Now if you want to look at really good photos of Po218 halos, just go here:Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Index Here are some good ones from biotite mica: Again, I still see wider more defined inner rings than the outer ones. Of course density is also a function of the inverse square law (the "rings' being spheres cut across a major diameter), but the difference from Po-210/Rn-222 to Po-218 ring is more than that. We should see about an 80% drop, and it looks more like half (to me).
Now those aren’t so “fuzzy” are they? You see, in the seventies, photographic abilities with microscopes were horrible compared to today’s. By Gentry’s 1986 2nd edition book, the photo capabilities were much better. Strangely the fuzzyness does not come from the photographic technology, but from the physics of radiohalo formation. No matter how precise you make those photos you will still have blurring of all the rings
Now keep in mind that Gentry didn’t just use a microscope and ring measurements to identify these halos. He used several other scientific techniques which I will discuss later in this forum. So in conclusion, your “EVIDENCE” isn’t evidence at all. These are not the improbable (if not impossible)Rn222 halos that evo-babblers claim. And Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t very fuzzy, was he? Sadly, much to nobody's surprise (certainly not mine), the pictures still show blurred edges and different width rings, they still show wider, denser, innermost rings, and nothing here has ruled out the probability of Radon-222 being involved in every Polonium halo.
And even if you could show problems with the Po218 halos, you still couldn't explain why there are Po210 halos with no possibility of Rn222 precursor. Actually I can. We go back to that small void pocket with the four(4) day delay for the flow of radon by partial pressures. Now we make the pocket smaller, shorten the delay period, with the delivery time closer to the peak decay time, say centered on the fourth day, and keeping the delay long enough to increase the probability of decay in that location enough to form a single decay ring, and then the flow of water flushes out the Po-218 before it bonds to the crystal lattice. You are left with a Rn-222 halo misidentified as a Po-210 halo (remember these are the ones that are about the same size). There are other explanations as well.
Gentry presents evidence of Po218,214, and 210 halos in the same mica sections. Your problems don't go away, so please stop invoking MAGIC! form the evo-babblers as your evidence. Curiously I am not the one invoking magic physics and chemistry to explain the evidence. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarity Edited by RAZD, : Po not P0 Edited by RAZD, : moved photo 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks again AlphaOmegaKid.
Now if you want to look at really good photos of Po218 halos, just go here: Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Index Thanks, that is useful. Just for information purposes, this is the Radium/Uranium Decay Chain unsorted (ie in chronological order)):
quote:238U :: :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th Notice that some are listed twice with alternate decay paths, but it all ends up in the same place. Where there are two paths of decay, α and β-, %frequency of the α decay and β- is given. In the majority of the decay events 214Bi and 210Bi will decay by β- decay rather than α decay, so these are not likely to contribute to ring formation (and their α decay events would also likely be interpreted as 222Rn and 218Po α decay events respectively due to energy proximity). If we just use the main paths (assuming that the minor paths don't contribute significant α decay events to affect the formation of rings\halos) we can cut this down to:
quote:238U :: :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th Then we can strike the ones that decay by β- events as these don't seem to be involved in halo formation (though this is not ruled out):
quote:238U :: :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th This gives us the common decay events that can cause halos to form:
quote:238U :: :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th Here is the list of α decay events sorted by MeV/radius, where I've added a column for the MeV squared (to indicate relative surface area affected):
quote:common &alpha decay events, sorted by decay energy The energy/ring proximity of 230Th, 234U and 226Ra is even more striking in the squared (ie relative surface area) column, as are the 210Po and 222Rn energy/ring proximities, clearly showing a breakdown of Uranium decay events into five ring/halo forming groups, where the decay bands overlap and blend together. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences quote: There are four (4) clear rings in this picture. Here is one of Gentry's Uranium halos from your site:
Here we have 5 distinct rings (as commonly noted in the various articles), as do his other "mature" Uranium halo pictures. Because we can clearly see the inner rings we KNOW that radon was produced. Because we can clearly see the outer rings we KNOW that radon-222 decay occurred in that location. Because the five rings need to include all 8 α decay event energies, and because of the energies of these events we KNOW that:
The delta between 238U (4.27 Mev) and 230Th (4.77 Mev) is 0.5 MeV, or about 10%, which is much more than the delta between 210Po and 222Rn. Likewise the other differences are greater than this amount, thus confirming the grouping given for the rings in question. This also matches the observed widths of these rings caused by (a) the natural width of the decay ring and (b) the overlap between the grouped events making the combined ring denser and wider. The natural blurring together of these eight decay events into five rings is not due to picture quality, but to the natural variations in where the decay events end within the crystal formations. To make a claim for Polonium halos that are not a result of Radon-222 mobility and subsequent decay, one needs to establish two things: (1) That Radon cannot move through these crystals. (2) That the decay in the rings does not include Radon-222 decay combined with the Polonium-210 decay. The first is negated by his own pictures of "embryonic" and "overexposed" uranium halos:
These pictures are missing most or all of the Rn-222 and subsequent daughter isotope decay events in spite of robust decay down to that point for isotopes with much longer half-lives. There can be little doubt that Rn-222 was produced, and that it did not stick around to develop the full uranium halo pattern, but left to set up housekeeping elsewhere with the rest of the family. The second is negated by his own pictures that show the same pattern as seen in the Uranium halo for the 3 rings involved
Here the inner ring is clearly both thicker and denser than the other rings, clear evidence of the overlap and blending together of the decay from Rn-222 and Po-210. This typical pattern shows Radon-222 decay followed by the daughter isotope decay chain. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : Po not P0 Edited by RAZD, : moved photo 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
These are drawings I made using the α particle energies listed for each of the decay series:
(1) a theoretical "pure" uranium halo, with a single uniform radius for each decay type:
The order are:
238U Red Notice it is very difficult to distinguish the yellow from the green, as the decay energy for 234U and 226Ra are almost identical. The other 6 are relatively easy to see (although the blue is dark).230Th Brown 234U Yellow 226Ra Green 210Po Cyan 222Rn Blue 218Po Magenta 214Po Purple (2) a theoretical "scattered" uranium halo, with the same average radii, but scattered randomly over a distance ±1.5% of the radius, using random dots to model the individual impact characteristics of decay (changed to better picture showing the color rings with the scatter, and including the scatter due to a small 0.1Mev equivalent inclusion1):
In this picture you can only count 5 rings even though you can see 7 of the 8 color bands:
The space between the inner 4 halo rings is not quite the width of the 1st and 4th halos (the ones that aren't overlapped decay rings). Compared this picture to one of a Gentry Uranium halo, and you can see that these rings are proportionally thinner than the real halos:
Here is the above view with complete rings and all in gray (so you can't tell from the color where they overlap):
Here the space between the inner rings is definitely less than the width of the rings, with the inner 2 rings being about twice the width of the gap between them. This shows that the model is conservative in modeling the amount of scatter that occurs from natural variations in α particle distance covered during the decay events and due to the size of the inclusion and random location of decay from anywhere inside that particle. This shows that normal scattering of the α decay is more than modeled, and even with this minimal amount of natural scattering of the α decay, that the radon-222 and polonium-210 halo rings cannot be distinguished by pictures no matter how detailed and carefully they are taken - it is physically impossible. With this minimal scattering there is a visible width difference between the third ring and all the others, and this is observed in both mature 238U halos and Gentry's purported 218Po Halos. With increased scattering this difference becomes less as the 210Po and 222Rn decay events overlap compared to single decay event rings. However, with greater natural scattering of the α decay events from the theoretical radius the halo rings for 210Po and 222Rn, this increasing overlap will cause more discoloration/damage in the ring zone than occurs in rings where only single isotopes contribute. We see this additional discoloration/damage in the uranium rings for both the second (3 isotope overlap) and third rings. We also see this additional discoloration/damage on the inner rings of Gentry's purported 218Po Halos.
Here is the above model with just the 222Ra and Polonium rings:
Based on this information it is not possible (proper, logical) to conclude that the three ring halos are only due to Polonium, as the possibility (probability, likelihood) that 222-Radon also contributes has not been eliminated. Enjoy. 1 - the scattering from inside the inclusion is modeled by using 7 origins, 6 evenly spaced on the circumference of the 0.1Mev diameter circle and one in the center Edited by RAZD, : added 2 pictures at end Edited by RAZD, : upgraded pictures deleted added material (incorporated above) Edited by RAZD, : added footnote Edited by RAZD, : move photos 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
No, a prediction from Wakefields peer-reviewed article, which happens to be posted by ntskeptics. Here's another version of The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", where he lays out the evidence that is the basis for his theory, and where he develops his prediction from the theory:
quote: First let's address the false claim that Wakefield's work is a scientific "peer reviewed" article. As you have shown before, Wakefield's article was published in the May 1988 edition of the Journal of Geological Education . This magazine is put out by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers and the magazine is now called the Journal of Geoscience Education. This journal is a teacher's educational journal. It is not a professional science journal by any means. Just look at the articles and you will discover that most of the articles are about "how" to teach a particular geological topic. Here are the articles from the May 2008 eddition:
quote: So this is the scientific peer reviewed work you are trying to defend?Yes it is peer reviewed as you stated earlier: quote: Now the yellow highlights are for you and others to understand that this is a teacher's journal by fiat and not a science journal by any measure. The articles are all written by undergraduates who don't even have a BS or BA and some haven't even graduated high school. Many are written by community college students. So since you made the issue of Robert Gentry's credentials and credibility, let's do a little comparison.... Forbidden
quote: So let me summarize... Gentry is a professional scientist with a BS, MS in Physics and honorary doctorate who served thirty years as a scientist, and has been published in all the major peer reviewed science journals multiple times. And we have J. Richard Wakefield who was published as an undergraduate in Geology. We don't know any of his professional credentials, and if you will check, his website is hosted by the infamous Lorence Collins. My what a comparison! Do you see why I have called this evo-babble????? It certainly is not credible science. Now to demonstrate this, I will use your picture of the U238 halo above. It's an excellent representation and very well done. But it is not W(F)akefield's work, and it wasn't in his published article. If you look in the upper right hand corner, you can easily see that this is copyrighted work from some unknown John Bradley. So, I thought I would check the references. You know what? This artwork isn't referenced. Do I detect seeds of evo-babbling plagiarism. So then I decided to look at all the references and guess what I found? OK, I can't wait for you to guess. If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you will find J.Richard W(F)akefield's credentials....Here they are References Cited
quote: Now I honestly wish Mr. W(F)akefield success in his long arduous task of gaining his BS. And I wish him much enjoyment as an amateur geologist. My son had a sandbox in his earlier days. But in the meantime, you and other evo-babblers have fallen prey to citing this work as professional scientific work, when it is just Pseudo science that is highly biased by evo-babbling skepticism. The web is full of it, and TalkOrigins is chief, so please be careful in the future when you choose your sources of information. That's why, as a creationist, I rarely cite a creationist websites in these forums. Now, finally, you should realize that the fuzzy halo argument is the same hypothesis that Henderson made in 1939. As a good scientist would do (Robert Gentry) he would test the opposing hypothesis. That's what all of Gentry’s work is about in his multiple publications. He used a significant number of scientific tests to confirm or deny Henderson's hypothesis of hydrothermal flow of U238 ions. The microscope/visualization argument about the Po210 and Rn222 rings is what Henderson proposed. But Henderson didn't have the technology when he lived to go beyond the microscope and visual images. Gentry did. He destroys Henderson's hypothesis in multiple peer reviewed articles with multiple scientific tests other that the microscope providing unambiguous evidence that these are indeed Po218,214,and 210 halos. I will spend my next posts detailing Gentry's work and showing that it is not based on microscope images. Those are mostly for his book and readers. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Spelling -AlphaOmegakid- I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024