polonium halos

And why did you crop and lighten your image just to make another wild anecdotal claim?If you look at the original photo I posted which the color wasn't alterred, you will see that the only place you could possibly make a diametrical measurement with a measuring microscope would be across the 2 oclock and 8 o'clock areas. If you look closely at those areas the cirlce is a perfect match to the ring.

Then how in the cosmos would you measure the inside isotope, if not by using the outside diameter??? And how would you measure all the isotope rings in Biotite which have an anulus with a width to them? That width varies depending on the radiocenter size. But you can easily measure the outside diameter of each ring and you can correlate those diameters with U238 halos and with variation in radiocenter diameter as Gentry and Meiers did. And both concluded that there is irrefutable visual measuring empirical data to conclude that these are indeed Po halos.Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest otherwise?

I haven't touched the colour, intensity, or anything. The Pixel colour values are exactly as in the original. Simply copied into Paint to cut out the area of interest. When you zoom in on an image, that is what happens!! And what is anecdotal about my claim. I am showing YOUR image to YOU and asking for clarification. Do you know what anecdotal means?And what difference if the image is lightened (and it is not) - how will that possibly change the observed location of the maximum intensity of the halo??? Or even the outer edge of the halo? When I get a moment I will present a whole range of intensities for the region of interest. This one... "is a perfect match" at 2 o'clcok and 8 o'clock??? Are you sure??? Your circle is blatently well outside the halo.Here's my closeup again with no alteration: Why is your autocad circle so far outside the halo?

What does difficulty have to do with it? If you measure to the outside edge of the halo, then every halo will give a different measurement, the variation being determined by the size of the source. Why would anyone be so stupid as to suggest this as a good idea?But let us say that you do measure to the outside edge. Do you honestly believe that your circle is at the outer edge of Po214 halo? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Your comments are anecdotal. What does "so far" mean. Blow it up a little more and it will be a "little so farther". Your anecdotal inferences are meaningless. Do you have an empirical measurement for "so far". I have already provided one for you in Message 152.That "so far" distance is well within the radiocenter size, and this ring is by far the least visible of the three. Two (po210 and po218) are very visible and match perfectly. The Rn222 is non-existent which agrees with the data. And the Po214 ring does match the diameter at 2 o'clock and 8' o'clock.So here is empirical data. The Po210 ring was measured at the OD as .0197mm. With that measurement established empirically, there is no evidence anywhere of a Rn222 ring. With that measurement established empirically the Po218 ring matches perfectly. Then you have the outside ring Po214 which is the least visible in this example. If you scale the diameters, the circle matches the theoretical circle very well at 2 o’clock and 8 o'clock. There are spots that don't, and I have explained them now multiple times.As in comparison the fraudulent Po218 halo shows no rings agreeing with the circles except the Rn222 which was fraudulently established as the datum.Now again I will ask you and RAZD? Do you have any empirical evidence that suggest that the inside ring is Rn222. What you are suggesting is anecdotal, and I do know what it means.

I think the word you are looking for is 'subjective'. If not, what anecdote am I using to be 'anecdotal'? Clearly not No, they don't. See here: Your autocad circle is blatently far outside the Po218 halo. Why is this?

I didn't say anything about difficulty. I asked someone who evidently thinks other peer reviewed scientists like Gentry and Meiers are stupid, to describe how he would measure the inside ring.Go ahead Mr. arrogant Astrophysicist, describe how you would more accurately measure that inside ring.

To continue... if you are correct, then how is this error accounted for? Can you point out where they state that their measurements are to the outside of the Po halos? And if they do, how do they account for inevitable error?

Your ignorance is being exposed cavediver, I wouldn't loose my reputation on this one if I were you. Clearly you are ignorant of the definition as it applies to scientific evidence. I dedicated a whole post to this earlier, so you are doubly ignorant on this issue. How large is "blatantly far" Mr. Anecdotal Astrophysicist? Is it a light year?

It is based on YOUR image And your dishonesty and deceit have been exposed Lying for Jesus is not a fruit of the Spirit, AoK Your autocad circle is blatently far outside the Po218 halo. Why is this?Would you like me to plot the binned radial intensity across the Po218 halo in this image, and show the position of your circle?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

That's OK, I'll smile when you bow cavediver.What about Message 172???Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

AoK, we can all look at the pictures supplied. We can SEE that your circles don't match the halos. Perhaps instead of just ranting you might explain why they don't.

Do you have any empirical evidence to present, or just more of the same lame anecdotal comments???Perhaps maybe you could explain why after 100's of thousands of these halos have been measured by multiple qualified scientists, that not one scientist claims that The Po218 halos are actually Rn222 halos.Perhaps maybe you can explain why confronted with all of this empirical evidence it is ignored by the evos in EVC forum and anecdotal evidence which is not scientific is accepted by them?Perhaps could this be a matter of religious conviction rather than an honest evaluation of evidence? That would be my explanation for such responses as your's, cavediver's, RAZD's, Brawley's, and Wakefield's.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Yes, your pictures! That is the whole point. YOUR pictures show that YOUR added circles don't appear to be in the right place.You have yet to explain this. I can see the lines clearly. Pretending this isn't there doesn't help your case.

What about it? Does difficulty in measuring the inner most halo lead you to claim that your circles match the outer halos when they so obviously do not?You have been caught in blatent dishonesty while falsely accusing RAZD of the same. You are pathetic, AoK. At the beginning of this thread, I had some respect for this discussion, and believed that you were debating in good faith with RAZD. In fact, I was tempted to contrast your work in this thread with some of the idiot ideas being put forth elsewhere on the site.I'm sorry, but your refusal to back down here reveals you as dishonest , fraudulent, and completely unworthy of attention. Gentry may possibly be completely correct in all of his work - and if so, the last thing he needs is a snivelling science-wannabee like you. Truly pathetic.