polonium halos

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Unimportant. It has been demonstrated more than sufficiently to all the readers of this thread. Yes, I'm sure you do I have helped reveal your dishonesty and fraud. And highlighted the falsity of your despicable accusations aimed at RAZD. That's plenty for me

Unimportant. I have helped reveal your dishonesty and fraud. And highlighted the falsity of your despicable accusations aimed at RAZD. That's plenty for me

Hi dokukaeru, thanks for joining in with this. I should just point out that when I said I was adding 'colour', I meant in the colloquial sense - i.e. I was adding pictures to highlight the information I was presenting in my text. I did not alter the images in any way other than to present zooms of the areas of interest. Earlier, AoK accused me of lightening the images, which I certainly did not do. But I can now see from where his confusion may have arisen.Edited by cavediver, : A rather important 'not' was missing!

1) How is measuring to the "edge" of the ring more accurate, when the ring intensity is almost certainly gaussian in nature.2) What has the edge measurement to do with anything??? Why do you think the rings are radially extended? What would mark the outer limit of such a ring? What would the outer limit of such a ring then represent?

you're right - my expertise is quantum gravity, somewhat below the scale of atomic and nuclear physics. But I've taught enough atomic and nuclear to get by... now, let's try again:2) What has the edge measurement to do with anything??? Why do you think the rings are radially extended? What would mark the outer limit of such a ring? What would the outer limit of such a ring then represent?

Irrelevant even if true, and it's not. The centre of the band can be determined by visible features - the visible intensity variation. The visible "edge" is simply where the extent of the band can no longer be determined from the background signal in this particular photograph. Thus your edge is a function of the photographic image and the band, where-as the maximum is independent of the image.This is irrlevant, because it is the maximum that coincides with the theoretical penetration distances. The broadening of the band (into a gaussian) is caused by numerous effects, but primarily the none-point-like (extended) nature of the source. This should be obvious to anyone wanting to discuss this topic. If Gentry argued that the measurements should be to the outer-most *visibile* extent of the ring, then he better have a damn good explanation for why - claiming ease or "greater accuracy" is idiocy.

The edge of visibility may well be the same all the way around - so what? How does that change the fact that the edge radius will be a function of the image reproduction Are you actually understanding anything that you are being told?

why do you think you are still posting??? - because you have come up with different results to RAZD's and my own - THAT is how much of a difference it is. And your attempts to measure are woeful. When the measurements are made with reasonable care, it is obvious that the radon circle is there. Funny how both you, Alphaomegakid before you, and Gentry at the beginning - all measure to the outside edge with complete disregard to the physics, just so you can all try to claim that the radon circle is not there. Now, let me think... are there are any pertinent idealogies that all three of you share that may want you all to believe that there is no radon ring??

I'm a fucking astrophysicst (on top of everything else) - do you want me to try and guess how many absorption/emission gaussian lines I've measured (not to mention photographed, extracted, resolved, fitted, etc) in my life? And here I am arguing with yet another cretin who thinks he knows what he's talking about.Your predecessor would never have doubted be so... I'm hurt, lyx2no, hurt I tell you Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.