Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
73 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,039 Year: 4,151/6,534 Month: 365/900 Week: 71/150 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
techristian
Member (Idle past 3331 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 1 of 265 (28929)
01-12-2003 6:15 PM


I have heard that this new evidence is very hard to dispute.

http://www.halos.com/

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/polonium_pleochroic_halos.htm

http://www.halos.com/overview.htm

Dan
http://musicinit.com

[This message has been edited by techristian, 01-12-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 01-12-2003 7:01 PM techristian has taken no action
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 7:24 PM techristian has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 265 (28934)
01-12-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
01-12-2003 6:15 PM


New? It's been around since the 80's and many refutations have been posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 01-12-2003 6:15 PM techristian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 7:18 PM gene90 has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 265 (28936)
01-12-2003 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
01-12-2003 7:01 PM


The whole issue is being reopened Gene.

With the recent helium retention work creationists are now accepting all of the radiodecay data (finally!) and now we can start looking back at Gentry's stuff again. The halos document that (i) radiodecay occurred but that (ii) it was accelerated. I believe that claims that all of Gentry's stuff was refuted in the 1980s are exaggerated, but I am not an expert.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 01-12-2003 7:01 PM gene90 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 265 (28937)
01-12-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
01-12-2003 6:15 PM


TEC

The really solid new stuff is the measurement of helium diffusion that shows that too much helium is still in the rocks. It is based on earlier work by Gentry (the halo guy). Late last year creationists refined the technique to generate a new dating scheme based on helium diffusion from radiodecay centres. They dated 'billion year old' rocks at between 4,000 and 14,000 years old. It is a major creatonist breakthrough:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm

Thanks for pointing out Gentry's new videos. I suspect (without being an expert) that much of Gentry's 1980s claims are still valid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 01-12-2003 6:15 PM techristian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:38 PM Tranquility Base has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 934 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 265 (28950)
01-12-2003 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 7:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The whole issue is being reopened Gene.

With the recent helium retention work creationists are now accepting all of the radiodecay data (finally!) and now we can start looking back at Gentry's stuff again. The halos document that (i) radiodecay occurred but that (ii) it was accelerated. I believe that claims that all of Gentry's stuff was refuted in the 1980s are exaggerated, but I am not an expert.


Please explain what He diffusion has to do with Po haloes.

And no, the haloes do not indicate any kind of accelerated decay. This conclusion has been completely debunked numerous times. It is embarrassing to see creationists bring this up again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 6:38 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 934 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 265 (28954)
01-12-2003 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 7:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The really solid new stuff is the measurement of helium diffusion that shows that too much helium is still in the rocks. It is based on earlier work by Gentry (the halo guy). Late last year creationists refined the technique to generate a new dating scheme based on helium diffusion from radiodecay centres. They dated 'billion year old' rocks at between 4,000 and 14,000 years old. It is a major creatonist breakthrough:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm


LOL! If this is so bullet proof, why have you not answered the responses on the other thread about He diffusion. We Happy among others has been waiting for responses for a month now.

quote:
Thanks for pointing out Gentry's new videos. I suspect (without being an expert) that much of Gentry's 1980s claims are still valid.

Sorry, my humor quota has been exceeded for the evening. Gentry can describe the haloes all he wants and he is good at it. However, his interpretation is so skewed by his rigid adherence to a young earth that he has made himself a spectacle. Check all of his references. No one supports his interpretations of a 'genesis rock' (among other wild extrapolations) except a few fringe creationists. These guys are WAY outside the second standard deviation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 7:24 PM Tranquility Base has taken no action

  
John Solum
Inactive Junior Member


Message 7 of 265 (28982)
01-13-2003 8:53 AM


Tranquility Base said:
“With the recent helium retention work creationists are now accepting all of the radiodecay data (finally!) and now we can start looking back at Gentry's stuff again. The halos document that (i) radiodecay occurred but that (ii) it was accelerated. I believe that claims that all of Gentry's stuff was refuted in the 1980s are exaggerated, but I am not an expert.”

Gentry’s work with polonium halos is based on the premise that rates of radioactive decay have been constant. If decay rates have varied, then his work is invalidated. He identified the halos in his biotite samples based on the diameter of those halos, which he said is directly proportional to the energy of the decay of the isotope that formed the halo (the greater the energy the larger the halo). He said that the energy released by the decay of particular isotopes of polonium would form halos with the same diameter as the halos in his samples, and therefore that the halos in his samples formed through the decay of polonium. If radioactive decay rates have changed, then the energy associated with the decay events has changed, and if that’s the case his identifications are invalid.

There are major problems with Gentry’s work. For example, the isotopes of polonium that Gentry proposes for his halos (Po 210, 214, and 218) are all part of the decay series of uranium238, and there are uranium-bearing minerals in the rocks where he collected his samples in Ontario. So, contrary to Gentry’s claim there is a source for the polonium in his samples. Further, Po210, 214, and 218 all occur after radon222 in the decay series, and since radon’s a gas, not only is there a source for the polonium, there’s a source that’s capable of migrating through the rocks where he collected his samples.

Richard Wakefield’s analysis of Gentry's work:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 6:21 PM John Solum has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 265 (29014)
01-13-2003 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Solum
01-13-2003 8:53 AM


John S

Gentry’s work with polonium halos is based on the premise that rates of radioactive decay have been constant. If decay rates have varied, then his work is invalidated.

In our sceanrio there are various points at which decay was accelrated presumably to generate catastrophic tectonic activity (creation day 3 and the flood).

the diameter of those halos, which he said is directly proportional to the energy of the decay of the isotope that formed the halo (the greater the energy the larger the halo).

Agreed

He said that the energy released by the decay of particular isotopes of polonium would form halos with the same diameter as the halos in his samples, and therefore that the halos in his samples formed through the decay of polonium.

Agreed

If radioactive decay rates have changed, then the energy associated with the decay events has changed, and if that’s the case his identifications are invalid.

Not necessarily. The pop-out rate may change but the energies may stay the same. This may or may not be possible and we await the RATE guys theoretical work. Regardless, Gentry's creation granite may be at a time point during normal decay rates.

So, contrary to Gentry’s claim there is a source for the polonium in his samples. Further, Po210, 214, and 218 all occur after radon222 in the decay series, and since radon’s a gas, not only is there a source for the polonium, there’s a source that’s capable of migrating through the rocks where he collected his samples.

It's possible that Gentry's stuff is wrong, I agree. I don't kow enough about it and I hope you understand that I would like to read his rebuttals (anybody know if they are on the web?).

Nevertheless, Gentry is also responsible for the early helium retention work whihc is what I was actually alluding to. I am unaware whether halos are involved in that or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Solum, posted 01-13-2003 8:53 AM John Solum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 01-13-2003 7:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 01-13-2003 8:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 14 by John Solum, posted 01-13-2003 9:57 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 265 (29016)
01-13-2003 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
01-12-2003 10:31 PM


Edge

I guess I was wondering whether one gets halos in the zircons or biotite. This is primarily a red-herring, I agree. My main point is that Gentry was involved in helium retention, possibly independently of halos of any sort.

You'll be vaugely happy to know that creationists (including me) regularly use halos to prove to creaitonists who would rather not think about it that billions of years worth of radiodecay has indeed occured.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:31 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 934 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 265 (29018)
01-13-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 6:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

...

Nevertheless, Gentry is also responsible for the early helium retention work whihc is what I was actually alluding to. I am unaware whether halos are involved in that or not.


Does this mean you are ready to answer questions and respond to our posts on the helium retention thread? So far, you are not doing well over there...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 6:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 8:13 PM edge has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 265 (29024)
01-13-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by edge
01-13-2003 7:41 PM


Edge

I apologise again. In Australia it is our summer holidays and I have been away and only have time for lazy posting. I will get to Wehappy's stuff any day now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 01-13-2003 7:41 PM edge has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 265 (29025)
01-13-2003 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 6:21 PM


quote:
The pop-out rate may change but the energies may stay the same.

Uhh...What??
If the energy per event stays the same, and you just have a million-fold increase in the rate at which the events happen, your power output has gone up by a million.

quote:
we await the RATE guys theoretical work.

Yes. We await it with bated breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 6:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 8:19 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 265 (29027)
01-13-2003 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coragyps
01-13-2003 8:16 PM


^ I agree the power output would go up. That doesn't change the halo diameters. RATE already has a chapter on the theoretical stuff in the RATE book of y2000. I'll have a quick look if the ycover the issue of halo diameter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 01-13-2003 8:16 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
John Solum
Inactive Junior Member


Message 14 of 265 (29040)
01-13-2003 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 6:21 PM


Tranquility Base:
“Not necessarily. The pop-out rate may change but the energies may stay the same. This may or may not be possible and we await the RATE guys theoretical work. Regardless, Gentry's creation granite may be at a time point during normal decay rates.”

That’s an interesting idea, but it’s unworkable since half-life and kinetic energy are related; if you change one, you change the other. If you want the isotope to decay faster you’d have to reduce the half-life, which would increase the kinetic energy, and therefore the diameter of the halo.

The relationship between kinetic energy and the half-life are discussed here.
http://www-highspin.phys.utk.edu/~bingham/AlphaDecay.html

Tranquility Base:
“It's possible that Gentry's stuff is wrong, I agree. I don't kow enough about it and I hope you understand that I would like to read his rebuttals (anybody know if they are on the web?).”

I can certainly understand your desire to read Gentry’s work. I don’t know what he’s published on the web. I don’t know of any valid rebuttals for the problem that I mentioned, as well as others (for example the fact that his halos occur in igneous dikes in metamorphic rocks, and are therefore younger than the metamorphic rocks, and therefore cannot be “Genesis” rocks). You can read Gentry’s responses to some problems on his website http://www.halos.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 6:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 10:24 PM John Solum has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 265 (29047)
01-13-2003 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Solum
01-13-2003 9:57 PM


John S

That’s an interesting idea, but it’s unworkable since half-life and kinetic energy are related; if you change one, you change the other. If you want the isotope to decay faster you’d have to reduce the half-life, which would increase the kinetic energy, and therefore the diameter of the halo.

Your link states that the half life is dependent on Q (the KE release) but it may be dependent on other things. It actually poinys out that you can get 24 orders of magnitude half life change from a doubling of Q so maybe the 6 orders of magnitude change in half-life we are talking about could even use a small Q change. I'm an ex-particle physicist but I'll take a look at the RATE book before wasting too much time on it.

I can certainly understand your desire to read Gentry’s work. I don’t know what he’s published on the web.

I've actually got Gentry's 1980s book. On the halo.com site he is certainly claiming that the 'refutations' are invalid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Solum, posted 01-13-2003 9:57 PM John Solum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John Solum, posted 01-14-2003 8:46 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022