Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 163 of 265 (487285)
10-29-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by cavediver
10-29-2008 2:32 PM


Re: Anecdotal Evidence
Sorry, I didn't get a reply to this:
See Message 152
Sorry, I didn't get a reply to this:
Astrophysicists like me understand this very well in our measurements of stellar and cosmological spectra.
You mean you actually measure stellar and cosmological spectra? You have my praise. Some people just look at the cosmos, and make all kinds of assertions without any evidence.
Gentry, Henderson, Sparks, and Meiers all measure the halos and they agree on the results. Brawley, Wakefield, and RAZD haven't measured a thing. They just looked at the halos and made all kinds of assertions.
PS.
As an astrophysicist do you condone RAZD's use of anecdotal evidence and trying to allude that it is scientifc or empirical in any way??
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 2:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 166 of 265 (487290)
10-29-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by cavediver
10-29-2008 3:08 PM


More anecdotal Evidence
And in your case, your circles are not at the outer edge, but substantially beyond it, as is obvious in the image below. Why is this?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:08 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 167 of 265 (487292)
10-29-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by cavediver
10-29-2008 3:08 PM


Re: Anecdotal Evidence
Clearly measuring to the outer edge of the halo will produce an incorrect radius, as this radius is produced by source that is the most displaced from the origin of the halo!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:08 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 170 of 265 (487297)
10-29-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by cavediver
10-29-2008 3:34 PM


Re: More anecdotal Evidence
Why is your autocad circle so far outside the halo?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 3:34 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 172 of 265 (487301)
10-29-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by cavediver
10-29-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Anecdotal Evidence
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:00 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 174 of 265 (487303)
10-29-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
10-29-2008 4:22 PM


Clearly ignorant of the definition
I think the word you are looking for is 'subjective'. If not, what anecdote am I using to be 'anecdotal'?
dictionary.com writes:
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Your ignorance is being exposed cavediver, I wouldn't loose my reputation on this one if I were you.
Clearly not
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.
Your autocad circle is blatently far outside the Po218 halo. Why is this?
How large is "blatantly far" Mr. Anecdotal Astrophysicist? Is it a light year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 5:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 265 (487307)
10-29-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by cavediver
10-29-2008 5:02 PM


Re: Clearly ignorant of the definition
And your dishonesty and deceit have been exposed Lying for Jesus is not a fruit of the Spirit, AoK
That's OK, I'll smile when you bow cavediver.
What about Message 172???
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 5:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 5:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 178 of 265 (487311)
10-29-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by NosyNed
10-29-2008 5:30 PM


Re: The Rings
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:30 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 181 of 265 (487317)
10-29-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by cavediver
10-29-2008 5:56 PM


You still ignored the question
What about Message 172???
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?
Well you ignored the question once again, because you know I'm right. You know that the only way to measure the inside ring is by the O.D. You cannot legitimately describe another method of measuring the inside ring other than by it's O.D. All of the other rings should and are measured the same way.
You have accused me of dishonesty and lying, but you cannot empirically demostrate this.
All you have identified is "so far" and "blantantly". I have challeged you to define those two terms and you have refused. The only ones being dishonest are all of those claiming that the Po218 halos are Rn222. You, nor anyone else has presented any empirical evidence of this.
I hope you continue to believe that I am "unworthy of attention" and you drop out of this discussion. You haven't added anything evidentiary towards it. You have displayed your skill as an astrophysicist. It's not impressive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 5:56 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 6:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 182 of 265 (487319)
10-29-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by NosyNed
10-29-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Evidence
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.
Then please show empirically how much my circles are off. Show me what is the magnitude where they "don't match up". Put your money where your mouth is.
And I have explained this multiple times starting with Message 152

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2008 5:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 184 of 265 (487323)
10-29-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by cavediver
10-29-2008 6:31 PM


You still ignored the question
I see you still ignored Message 172.
I would think an astrophysicist could answer this simple question.... I guess not????????
Let's see... there are a few rules in this forum.....
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
quote:
Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
Maybe they don't apply to you??
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 6:31 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 6:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 194 of 265 (487451)
10-31-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
10-29-2008 10:00 PM


Stiil no evidence of Rn222 halos
Thanks RAZD,
Curiously I don't question the existence of polonium halos. What I question is that their source is "primordial" polonium and that there are no 222Rn halos.
Having seen the evidence of 222Rn bands in these pictures,...
You've got to be joking, Right? You have been arguing for many pages now that these aren't Po218 halos but are Rn222 halos. Do I need to go back and quote you????
Then in the very next sentence you go back to saying that there is evidence of Rn222 in these halos. If there trully is evidence of Rn222 in these halos, then these are Rn222 halos and not Po218 halos.
So, you need to make a decision about the halos. Are Gentry's and Meiers Po218 halos indeed Po218 halos or are the Rn222 halos?
The identification of the halo is a totally distinct issue separate from the hypotheses of their formation process. So once again, are these Rn222 halos or are they Po218 halos?
So you have:
  1. evidence of 222Rn leaving some uranium inclusions, where Gentry mis-identifies them as "embryonic" halos in spite of such things being physically impossible according to all the known physics.
  2. evidence of 222Rn and lots of decay along fissures and cracks.
  3. "polonium" halos only in rocks where 222Rn is plentiful and 235U is added to the rocks by a secondary formation process,
  4. evidence of "polonium" inclusions being formed after uranium inclusions have already become embedded in the crystals
  5. evidence of radioactive isotopes of the 235U series being "distilled" by higher than normal ratios of 206Pb to 207Pb
  6. evidence of 222Rn in at least ONE halo.
Let's address these one at a time....
2. evidence of 222Rn and lots of decay along fissures and cracks.
Again, I have already asked for this evidence and you haven't presented any. Staining along a fissure or crack may be a result of alpha decay, but you cannot determine what isotope created the decay stain. Please show this evidence. Your comments here are anecdotal.
3. "polonium" halos only in rocks where 222Rn is plentiful and 235U is added to the rocks by a secondary formation process,
I hope you slipped up with the U235 bit. I assume you mean U238/234.
But there is no evidence of secondary formation except the visible evidence of cracks, fissures, and conduits. Gentry tested this hypothesis by testing for fission track and alpha recoil pits. Both were dramatically absent around the Po halos. In other words, there is no empirical evidence of secondary formation whether from a hydrothermal fluid source carrying U decay isotopes or from Rn222 gas.
The empirical evidence says there was no secondary formation. The anecdotal evidence from the cracks, fissure, and conduits says there is a secondary formation. Therefore, you have nothing here, but anecdotal evidence.
4. evidence of "polonium" inclusions being formed after uranium inclusions have already become embedded in the crystals
That's a new one. Did you try to slip that one in? Please present this evidence.
5. evidence of radioactive isotopes of the 235U series being "distilled" by higher than normal ratios of 206Pb to 207Pb
Again, you are back to anecdotal evidence. You have nothing empirical to base this on. And you're slipping again with the U235.
6. evidence of 222Rn in at least ONE halo.
Again, you don't have any empirical evidence here. All the emperical evidence says that these are Po218 halos by the directly measured ring diameters which have been repeated and agreed by mutiple scientists.
You have nothing but anecdotal evidence of fuzzily exploded images that have been scaled to show whatever you want. It is not empirical evidence. Gentry's evidence is empirical.
1. evidence of 222Rn leaving some uranium inclusions, where Gentry mis-identifies them as "embryonic" halos in spite of such things being physically impossible according to all the known physics.
Well, I guess you just don't understand the term "embryonic". Embyonic means not fully formed. Gentry proper identified these halos as not fully formed. Some have only the U238 ring. Some have two rings. Some have partial rings like the one you keep posting. And some have all the rings but Po214 and Po210. They are correctly identified by Gentry as embryonic, because they haven't fully formed.
Now the question is why?...They exist with just one ring. That also is contrary to all your "known" uniformitarian assumed physics.
Now Gentry knew that people like you would continue to present such anecdotal evidence of secondary formation. And he found an excellent case with coalified wood. This will be the topic of my next post.
Finally, It's OK to base your belief system on anecdotal evidence. Most religious people do. I should know. But don't try and discredit empirical evidence by the use of anecdotal evidence. That's not science, that's religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2008 10:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 4:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 3:53 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 197 of 265 (487461)
10-31-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by dokukaeru
10-31-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Stiil no evidence of Rn222 halos
Anyone with even a little knowledge of this science can see this.
Well that elliminates you from this discussion.
I think it has been said but needs repeating. You are outside of the margin of error with that ring by at least .001 mm which just so happens to be the width from polonium-210 to radon-222.
Then show this empirically. Otherwise your argument is lame as always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 4:39 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 6:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 202 of 265 (487698)
11-03-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
11-01-2008 3:53 PM


Still no evidence of Rn222 decay
It would not all be 222Rn, of course, but there is no way you can logically claim that 222Rn would not be present:
Oh yes there is! In fact, you can empirically test for this. That's what Gentry did. He tested by measuring the alpha recoil pit density around surrounding areas of Po halos. There was no evidence of Rn222 or any other type of U238 istope decay. It was dramatically absent from the rocks. This fossil evidence does in fact claim that Rn222 was not present.
the rocks are infected with 238U and one of the decay products, 222Rn is an inert gas that is well-known for pervading rocks through virtually invisible fissures and fracture planes.
"Infected with U238"???? Then why no evidence of fission tracks? Gentry tested for this. Meiers did also. No evidence of fission tracks or alpha recoil pits near or around Po halos.
"Rn222 is an inert gas well-known for pervading rocks"???
Actually it is the opposite. U238 in the rocks decays. Those areas in the rocks that are open to cracks and fissures allow Radon gas to escape the rocks. All gases flow from the direction of high resistance (small cracks) towards low resistance (larger cracks). Radon gas eventually ends up in the soil and ground water and then works its way to the atmosphere. Radon gas is not well known for "pervading" from soils and ground waters into solid rock except at very large fissures and cracks in the outer layers of rocks.
The decay along the cracks and fissures is obviously the result of SOME radioactive elements in the fluids and gases permeating these cracks and fissures.
Yes and that staining is obvious and the cracks and fissures are obvious. With all of Gentry's photos the largest crack or conduit is no larger than .002mm. And there is no visible staining along these conduits nor are there any fission tracks, nor are there any alpha recoil pits. In fact they are dramatically absent. This is strong evidence that no secondary flow process was taking place.
Thus you have means, method and opportunity. There would also be decay from the daughter isotopes of 222Rn, whether the atoms involved bonded to the sides, but continue to flow along the cracks and fissures. You could also have radioactive decay from any other radioactive isotope carried by the fluids and gases in these cracks and fissures.
Thus the empitical evidence in regards to secondary flow show that there was no means, method, or opportunity. If there was, then there would be "obvious" evidence in the fossil record of fission tracks and alpha recoil pits. But they are dramatically absent in the vicinity of the Po halos. This is strong evidence of pimordial origin rather than secondary origin.
Demonstrating that the type of rock where these halos are found are formed by secondary processes. Processes that do not occur at high temperatures and where chemical bonds are involved, the same kinds of chemical bonds that can cause decay isotope atoms to bond to the crystal lattice.
Wow! That's interecting. This article is about red-clouded alkalai feldspars from granitic rocks and hematite. It's not about biotite, fluorite and chordite. That's where Po halos are found. I don't know of any found in hematite. Do You?
This is a red clouded herring.
Of course they are anecdotal, as are ALL comments posted on an internet debate forum. That is what debate is.
No. One must provide evidence to back up their claims in these science forums if I understand correctly. Normally I would assume that this would mean scientific evidence. However since an evo is presenting, my assumption is wrong, and anecdotal evidence is allowed to be given equal weight with empirical evidence. But in real science that wouldn't be allowed. That's why none of your arguments of Rn222 halos is peer reviewed, because it would be rejected if there wasn't empirical evidence.
You have to consider all the evidence with open-minded skepticism if you want to pursue the truth.
You clearly haven't. You have ignored the empirical evidence that shows no secondary flow was taking place.
Being adamant about one position does not do that.
That's what you are doing. Gentry however, did just the opposite. He tested for evidence of secondary flow knowing full well that if he found any, it would destroy his hypothesis. This is what good scientists do.
Gentry has made documented mistakes on the geology
You can't cite one.
Wakefield's geology is better than Gentry's, and it is backed up by others.
You mean Wakefield's amateur geology. His amateur geology that leads him to make this emphatic statement....
quote:
Let me make one thing very clear at this point. The Silver Crater and the Fission Mine dikes are not granites at all. The composition and mode of origin is totally wrong for a granite and Gentry has made a major error in identifying the source rocks of his biotite as granites. In his book Gentry erroneously criticizes Dalrymple for comparing the textures of basaltic lava and granite (Gentry, 1986,p. 130), yet Gentry can't tell the difference between granite and calcite vein-dike rock.
Well the AlphaOmekid put on his amateur geology hat and immediately found that there is granite pegmatites at the Silver Crater mine in Ontario Canada. In fact, from the Geological Survey of Canada Miscellaneous Report 39.....
quote:
In granite pegmatite.
"Silver Crater Mines Limited explored the deposite between 1954 and 1957. The work consisted of several pits and trenches and an adit driven 91.5 m into a hill overlooking Nogies Creek."
Now Wakefield claims metamorphic creation of the rocks, but he presents not one picture of such rocks. Yet Gentry does and you can see some of the granites here....
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 11
Yet Wakefield wants us to belive that Gentrys rocks were these...
Now for you to believe Wakefield, you are going to have to ingnore the evidence that there is granite pegmatites from the Silver Crater mine and you are going to have to believe that Gentry's pictured rocks are not granite pegmatites but are calcite vein dike rocks.
Wakefield has no credibility in any of his work. His anecdotal evidence is meaningless in comparrison to Gentry's empirical evidence.
By the way, I guess Meiers (a degreed and published geologist was also confused about these rocks being granites.?!?!?!?!? He also used Biotie samples from the Faraday Province in Ontario Canada.
You keep trying to find reasons to dismiss arguments rather than answer them, and that is not open-minded skepticism.
I opened my mind. I did five minutes of research on the Silver Crater mine, and I found Wakefield to be ignorant of the facts. Yet Meiers a real geologist does not once question Gentry's geology nor his discovery of Po halos. That's why all your "evidence" is nothing more than evo babbling. None of it is credible.
What I have said is that where you have wider bands for the third band in from the outside, that you likely have 222Rn overlapping 210Po.
Then this would be defined as a Rn222 halo, and it's measured diameter would be .0205. But there is no empirical evidence of these measurements. In fact Meiers tests Gentry's measurements and finds them correct. He measured the Po210 diameters at .0195 mm which is in agreement to Gentry's. All the fuzziness or so called wide bands in this inner ring would have measured at less that .0195mm. This elliminates the possibility of Rn222 in any way shape or form being a part of the halo. So here we have two scientists agreeing on biotite samples from the same area, but only an evo amateur scientist says they aren't granites at all. tch tch. eh?
214Po halos (without 218Po bands) and 210Po halos (without 214Po or 218Po bands) would not logically have 222Rn bands and missing 218Po (or 214Po) bands.
Then how did the Po214 halos form?
The 3-band halos with wide inner bands are logically 222Rn halos
There you go again with that fallacy. The only way possible that they could be Rn222 halos is if they measured .0205mm. No one has ever empirically claimed that. In fact just the opposite. Scientists have claimed just the opposite. They have claimed that the evidence is irrefutable by size measurements that these halos are anything other than Po218 halos.
The logic you are using is "fuzzy" logic. Which ignores the true evidence.
Once you break the physical location link of the radioactive isotope and the original inclusion, you then have a free-floating atom looking for a home. Any one of these atoms at any time in its progression from 222Rn to 206Pb can lodge within the crystal at any point
And they wander out of the rocks and not into the rocks. The wander towards the path of least resistance. If they lodge, then they decay there. If Rn222 lodged anywhere it would create Rn222 halo which would have an inner ring diameter of .0205. But there is no evidence of this. If they decayed into Po218 and the Po218 lodged, then there would be evidence of alpha decay. And there is none.
Again you are mixing terminology and making mistatements in an attempt to dismiss the argument rather than deal with the reality of it.
No, I dismissing your arguments with empirical data. Direct microscopic measurement data from multiple sources. Direct empirical evidence showing a lack of fission tracks which would be prevalent in any kind of flow situation. Empirical evidence showing a lack of alpha recoil pits in the area of Po halos. All of this is evidence against any kind of isotope flow.
There is no reality of Rn222 halos. Only wishful thinking. And there the evidence is against any kind of flow related theory.
I seriously doubt that "multiple scientist" have measured this particular halo, which is from his book collection and not any of the peer reviewed articles as far as I can determine.
This is a red herring. Multiple scientists have taken direct measurements of thousands of Po halos. And they agree that by those measurements, they exist.
And this measurement of the diameters of the photo by this process is indeed empirical:
NOT!
This is empirical (experiment + observation) evidence that 222Rn is in this halo.
NOT!
And this is empirical evidence that Jesus is alive and has risen from the dead.....
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 3:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by dokukaeru, posted 11-03-2008 6:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 204 by Joe T, posted 11-03-2008 7:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024