polonium halos

Hi Phideaux, No it just shows that that one line happens to obtain that result. To validate it you need to start from that same spot and measure lines in several directions. You have not done that, while my circles have, in effect measured lines all around the circumference, and hence my circles are more robust than your single line in accuracy. If you change the "center" of your line slightly you can get very different results because it will change the ratios between the circles. So when I match each of those published polonium radii, AND have a ring that just HAPPENS to be within the margin of error for where he says the 222Rn ring is, is just luck eh?When I take the same process from a 238U halo that ALSO matches his published results for every ring, and superimpose it over the "polonium" halo an IT just HAPPENS to match precisely where he says the 222Rn ring as well as match each of the polonium rings is ALSO just luck eh?Why does that happen, Phydeaux? How do you explain it?All I see so far is denial.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Well, first of all you didn't line up the circles correctly:
Click to enlargeLine up the circles incorrectly, and you get the wrong calibration. Also, the ring sizes very in size in the published results; this can make calibrating the ring sizes much more of a guessing game. Plus, this halo doesn't have a visible radiocenter like the uranium halo has; this is much harder to measure.I tried calibrating the distance between the rings of 214 and 218 to 11, which is a pretty consistent in the published reports, and got 3.9 between 218 and 210, but I think trying to calculate the ring size of this halo in this way is a bad idea. We need to know the actual size, not the size we calibrated to make it work.Edited by Phydeaux, : code correction.Edited by Phydeaux, : Same thing

Please check your email, or respond to Message 22. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'll get back to you on the weekend. I only have time to hit the highspots tonight, so I have to triage repliesEdited by RAZD, : sub

This topic has been of interest to me for some time. It's the only question ever put to me by a creationist that wasn't obviously flawed. I'm still not sure I'm fully up to speed so I don't want to let it go. This is a bump. You'll find that image 222rnhalo1v2ym1.jpg the right hand image with the misaligned circles is originally from Message 205, where RAZD said this about it:Clearly it was originally a test piece rejected for the better fit of this image: which RAZD used in all instances following with the exception of Message 215 where he picked the argument back up after a longish pause. I'll bet you he used the wrong image and your argument's for nought.Razd's method for finding the ring sizes is much more accurate the yours. It's much easier to find the peak of a Gaussian distribution then the edge. Especially since there ain't one.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Thanks lyx2no2, This is a point that is obvious to you, me and cavediver, but it isn't obvious to creationists, because (a) they don't usually know about Gaussian or any other kinds of distributions, and (b) the authority they use states he measures edges.The problem, as you point out, is that when you look closely, there is no edge. Part of this is due to inclusion size, and part of it is due to variations in penetration in a non-homogeneous material. I also suspect, but haven't confirmed, that the α-energy is not a fixed quantum number, but shows some variation in testing around a peak value. Actually, I used the worst example from my testing as it still showed that there had to be 222Rn in the halo: it shows damage at a distance that does not fit the "polonium only" model. I am planning to do a more thorough job this weekend, but don't know how much time I will have for it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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's method for finding the ring sizes is much more accurate the yours. It's much easier to find the peak of a Gaussian distribution then the edge. Especially since there ain't one"What? I see an edge. How can you find the center of coloration if there is no edge? I realize that some of the alpha particles may have went further than others, but you can't really see the damage they caused. Most of them gathered forming a pretty sharp ring. The ring is about 11 pixels thick. If you measure from Razd's circle to the edge of that part I pointed about before it's about 11 pixels. (and yes I measured it on the new picture you gave me) If you measure from the edge of the 210 ring to Razd's 210 circle it's about 11 pixels. Obviously some inconsistencies there.Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.

Yup, no knowledge of Gaussian distribution here.Click on the highlighted phrase above or remain ignorant (and a source of amusement).Edited by anglagard, : include original message

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

"It is often called the bell curve because the graph of its probability density resembles a bell."And how does that differ from what I said:"I realize that some of the alpha particles may have went further than others, but you can't really see the damage they caused."I know all the alpha particles are not all lined up in one spot, but the curve is pretty steep. Meaning there is an edge. Sure there may be an uncertainty of .1 m, but nothing like there is measuring from the center of the ring.Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.

It differs because in English and mathematics 'center' and 'edge' are not the same.Sheesh, if we have to start at this basic a level of understanding, I don't see how anything productive can happen for some time.I'll be back if I have something to contribute after you have worked out the difference between center and edge, and why it is important to measure the mean and not the illusive and undefined edge when discussing large amounts of data points that scatter around a mean in the normal curve.Edited by anglagard, : added "illusive and undefined"

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I'll look further into it. First I wanted to say that I realize it would be preferable to measure from the center, but how can know what is the center from this photograph? Btw, why are we using this photograph? It is definitely not the one with the clearest rings.

The centroid of the densest portion of the ring. Sheesh.

But don't you see the problem with this? There is practically no way to see the densest part of the ring. Coloration is uniform over a wide area.Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.

Sure, with these pics to work with it is imperfect. Any method of measuring is. But two things:1) It is the right way to do it.
2) It is better than trying to measure to the edge in any case.

coloration is not uniform; your discrimination is.Someone somewhere in a speciation topic has a nice gradient diagram running from red to yellow. The question being where does red end and yellow begin. Imagine curling the image into a ring. The eye almost automatically finds the center of either the red or the yellow areas by equalizing the orange to either side. Conversely, the eye seems to fight against one if one tries to locate the center of either orange band. And no two people will be able to agree on this as different people have different sensitivities to these colors. Everyone, however, has exactly the same sensitivity to these colors as themselves, so everyone balances the orange bands of opposite side equally, therefore picking the same middles for the red and yellow bands.(At least a part that statement has the potential of not being redundant.)AbE: I forgot what my after thought was.Edited by lyx2no, : To make myself look daft.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.