polonium halos

Gentry in his AAAS paper writes:Lorentz's efforts to explain this null result on the basis of an absolute reference frame were supposedly untenable. The real explanation, according to almost every physics textbook written in the past 60 years, was given by the theory of relativity, namely that: Given the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the fundamental principles of relativity are true, then there is no absolute reference frame. But the CMR is an absolute reference frame, so the original relativistic deductions about the Michelson-Morley experiment are in error. More precisely, since logic requires the contrapositive of a statement to be equivalent to the statement itself, the preceding "if relativity is true, then no absolute reference frame" statement must be equivalent to "if an absolute reference frame exists, then the fundamental principles of relativity are untrue." In simpler terms the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by an unambiguous experimental result. Without relativity theory there is no Big Bang, no Hubble relation for the redshift, and no explanation for the CMR in an evolutionary cosmological model.

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.

Gentry deals with all of this in his cosmological theories which go way beyond the scope of discussion of Po halos.

You are wrong. Period. You are fraudulently wrong.

It does match.

but we know that the measurements are taken at the largest diameters on the ring.

I guess a physicist like you measures the diamter of his vehichle tires by the inside diameter of the tread?

It is the outside/maximum diameter that reflects the alpha decay energy.

If you are so wise about this, then why don't you do a little investgative work...

cavediver writes:Wouldn't an extended source create a natural spread in the ring diameter, with the central maximum corresponding to the theoretical prediction?

AoK writes:The reason all rings are not "perfect" and there is some variation in them and you have a width to the rings is because the radiocenter has a physical size. The isotopes are emitting from different physical locations within the radiocenter.

This circle only has an outside diameter that is definable. In the case of U238 halos they measure the OD of the U238 stain. In the case of Po halos, they measure the OD of the Po210 stain. Then they do likewise for all other isotopes.

ctually the second is also AlphaOmegaKid's image - he posted two.

QED as they say, eh?

Sorry, I didn't get a reply to this: You mean you actually measure stellar and cosmological spectra?

Gentry, Henderson, Sparks, and Meiers all measure the halos and they agree on the results.

See Message 152

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.