Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
61 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,076 Year: 4,188/6,534 Month: 402/900 Week: 108/150 Day: 1/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2105 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 2105 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 taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2873 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 183 of 265 (487321)
10-29-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by AlphaOmegakid
10-29-2008 6:13 PM


Re: You still ignored the question
You have accused me of dishonesty and lying, but you cannot empirically demostrate this.

Unimportant. It has been demonstrated more than sufficiently to all the readers of this thread.

I hope you continue to believe that I am "unworthy of attention" and you drop out of this discussion.

Yes, I'm sure you do :laugh:

You haven't added anything evidentiary towards it.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-29-2008 6:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-29-2008 6:40 PM cavediver has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2105 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????????
:laugh:

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 taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2873 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 185 of 265 (487324)
10-29-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by AlphaOmegakid
10-29-2008 6:40 PM


Re: You still ignored the question
I see you still ignored Message 172.

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 :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-29-2008 6:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 265 (487331)
10-29-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid
10-29-2008 12:00 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
Hello AlphaOmegaKid. Getting a little intense are we?

Oh since you haven't produced one measurement or one cited measurement, nor have you ever witnessed a halo under a measuring microscope, now you are going to define how these halos should be measured.

Oh, but what is this? You are not actually measuring a thing. You are scaling rings to a drawing. This is not measuring. It is a bogus claim. I will repeat....

This was in response to your methodology, not to how scientists should measure halos - not having access to their equipment the best either you or I can do is scale the pictures and draw circles over them. What you have done is assume that the inner ring is (must be) 210Po. The bias in your outer circles betrays this - they do not match either outer band.

Unfortunately the pictures are not published with reference scales on them so that the could be scaled up from the actual photo dimensions, so the next best information is what is given by the photos themselves.

Obviously, only the two outer bands are clearly and unequivocally from single isotope decay sources, and thus are the only ones that can legitimately be used to size the pictures. They also act as a double check, as both rings need to match the published data within the margin of error.

Ok, let me see if I understand. You established your datum off the largest ring (Po214 R34.52 microns) which you can't even see in this picture?????? Oh, I see! you realized that you couldn't see it, so you chose the next ring which violated your aforementioned procedure. Then you established a three point best fit circle on a ring that is less than 40% visible. I wonder what the validity of of that circle is???????

I can see the outer ring in several places. The validity of it is how well the ring diameter matches the published value for fluorite. The values given in the table are 34.5 by Schilling and 34.7 by Gentry, so if anything the picture should be scaled up to make this ~34.6. This would increase the inside ring sizes by 100(34.6-34.52)/34.6 = 0.2%, because they are drawn to match the rings, not to duplicate data. Curiously I don't expect to duplicate measurements that are based on many observations and are an average value of all those observations. I expect to be within the margin of error, and on the uranium halo this is readily apparent:

   RAZD Gentry Schilling
14.15 14.2 14.0
16.89 17.1 16.9
19.50 19.5 19.3
20.54 20.5 20.5
23.50 23.5 23.5
34.52 34.7 34.5

The first thing I noticed about your picture is the outside ring is cropped off in two places. The second is that if you are establishing your other circles off of this, then what three points did you use to establish it. They must not have been very good, because your datum ring should match perfectly. It doesn't match at all at 8 o'clock and it is small at 2 o'clock. Your datum circle doesn't even match the ring for Po214.

Curiously cropping the picture to the same view as the 238U halo picture does not change the data on it nor the methodology used. You are grasping at straws here. I've redone the pictures (no change to the drawings) to show the complete rings.

Strangely, if you look closely at ~2 oclock you will see one of my circles used for defining the 214Po halo.

All the bands are distorted at 8 oclock, but this circle matches the outer band where it is faint as well as where it is strongly marked.

Now look at the Po218 circle. It is obviously way too small all the way around. This ring is very visible, and you are not within the error margin. Several spots around your circle exceed .001mm delta. This ring doesn't match at all.

The circle is through the maximum discoloration places (1) because there is no distinct "edge" and (2) because this matches how the faint rings were done on the 238U halo. If this were moved in there are places on the circumference where it would miss the discoloration.

I used the same kind of inset for max color for the next rings inward as well.

Now interestingly the Rn222 circle does match the Po210 ring just like it did in my fraudulent version of this halo.

Except that the radius is too large to be 210Po. You tried to force it to be a 210Po radius and your outer circles missed the discoloration bands, thus demonstrating that it is too big for 210Po.

And the Po210 circle has no ring definable anywhere.

Curiously I can see it several places, marked by slight gaps just inside the 222Rn band, just as seen on the 238U halo. Again we can compare data against the published values:

   RAZD Gentry Schilling
19.18 19.5 19.3
20.33 20.5 20.5
23.50 23.5 23.5
34.62 34.7 34.5

The outer bands match, the inner bands fall within the margin of error (+/-0.5 by one of your earlier posts). Note that there is still some discoloration outside the circle I have made for the 222Rn band, well outside the range for 210Po.

What were you double checking? That your figures still don't figure?

That the circles from the 234U picture show the same match to the rings that the ones drawn for it. There is still some discoloration outside the 222Rn circle from the 238U set, further beyond the range for 210Po.

You say that there was no scaling in these pictures. I believe you. But there should have been. The U halo was was captured at approximately 880 x's magnification. The Po218 halo in Fluorite was captured at approximately 725

You are not paying attention, or you are grasping at straws again. Remember, the process is to define the two outer bands and then scale the picture so that they match the published values, thus at that point they should be at the same magnification. In both pictures the two outer circles are very similar, demonstrating that the size of neither one was fudged nor faked.

Then I took and copied the rings from the 238U picture to the 222Rn picture, and you can see that the outer two rings fall in the same places.

And you can see the inner rings are on bands of discoloration.

If this was fraudulently done as you have claimed, then there should be white gaps between the 222Rn circle from the 238U set and the discoloration bands. There isn't.

That's only a 21% ERROR. Unfortunately, you really screwed this one up. Sorry.

So you're saying that my numbers are wrong - in spite of their agreement with published values - because the pictures were originally taken at different magnifications, then posted on a website at any possible magnification and without any scale reference distance marked on the pictures ...? Interesting thought process. Problem is that I corrected for this by setting the outer two rings to match the published data. At this point the two pictures should be at exactly the same magnification.

Meiers (a geologist after confirming Gentry's measurments eight years after Gentry's first publications) states:

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, AND having seen the evidence of 222Rn bands MISSING from the so-called "embryonic" 238U halos, AND the evidence of decay up and down the fissures in these rocks, AND the evidence that "polonium" halos have formed from a different process than either 238U or 232Th halos that artificially concentrates the decay isotopes, I'd say the evidence is very strong that inert radon gas has played a pivotal role in their formation.

To show you the difference, this is a 218Po halo:


Click to enlarge

Which I think you will agree matches the published data rather well. Notice that the 214Po and 218Po bands are drawn in the same manner as on the 222Rn halo previously posted.

Here it is with the same 238U circles superimposed on it:


Click to enlarge

What you see here, that you do NOT see on the 222Rn halo is a clear and unequivocal separation between the discoloration and the 222Rn circle. Here again is the 222Rn halo for reference and comparison:


Click to enlarge

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 238U 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 238U series being "distilled" by higher than normal ratios of 206Pb to 207Pb
  6. evidence of 222Rn in at least ONE halo.

Conclusion: 222Rn was instrumental in the formation of halos from 222Rn down to 210Po.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : eglisne

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : moreenglshness

Edited by RAZD, : 235 to 238U

Edited by RAZD, : moved photos


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-29-2008 12:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 6:31 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 194 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-31-2008 2:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 187 of 265 (487346)
10-30-2008 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
10-29-2008 10:00 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
razd writes:

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.

It has been explained numerous times that uranium "embryonic" halos are possible according to "all the known physics". May I ask a moderator to intervene and ask RAZD to stop repeating this?

The photos of many halos in coal are elliptical . This can be interpreted as the radiocenter moving. The purpose of wood is to transport water, therefore is not surprising that radiocenters in coal could have been moved by the water. As the radiocenter moves, alpha particles emitted will discolor the surrounding coal, and the halo will be elliptical. However, the major axis of these elliptical halos are of the order of 10 micro meters so I think that the daughter products only moved away by ~10um.

Anyway, the topic in this thread is more focused on Polonium halos found in rocks. Rocks are not like wood where there can be solutions moving. The halos in rocks are circular, not elliptical.

If people want to claim that Radon can leave the radiocenter and go somewhere else, why not prove it experimentally? Take a granite rock without halos, soak it in Rn222, and then check whether the 222Rn decayed inside the granite. The half life of 222Rn is just a few days, so this experiment can be stopped after 10 days.

I bought a hydrogen balloon for my son some time ago. The gas diffused out in a few days. Radon atoms are much larger than helium atoms. Balloons are much more prone to diffusion than rocks. It is absurd to believe that diffusion of Radon-222 occurs within a few days in granite.

RAZD writes:

evidence of 222Rn and lots of decay along fissures and cracks.

There is some truth to this statement, as many of the polonium halo photos show cracks. Many polonium halo photos have only a single ring. If the radiocenter started off as 222Rn center, there should be 4 rings. Also, in some photos (in my opininon majority of the polonium halos do occur along cracks) Polonium halos occur without any visible cracks:

The photo above is from http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1968-fossil-alpha-recoil.htm

Edited by peaceharris, : grammar


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 188 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2008 7:56 AM peaceharris has replied
 Message 189 by roxrkool, posted 10-30-2008 4:08 PM peaceharris has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 265 (487348)
10-30-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 6:31 AM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
Thanks peaceharris.

It has been explained numerous times that uranium "embryonic" halos are possible according to "all the known physics". May I ask a moderator to intervene and ask RAZD to stop repeating this?

Curiously I have not seen it. If this is so, you would benefit admin and the rest of us by actually explaining it rather than just claim it was said.

Strangely the amount of time between the first decay event and the last is much longer than 4 days for any of the inner rings, and thus by the time you have half of the inner ring formed you would see almost as much formation of the 222Rn ring -- unless the Radon went away.

Anyway, the topic in this thread is more focused on Polonium halos found in rocks. Rocks are not like wood where there can be solutions moving. The halos in rocks are circular, not elliptical.

At least in the plane section they are seen in. Some are elliptical due to length different from width of the inclusions.

If people want to claim that Radon can leave the radiocenter and go somewhere else, why not prove it experimentally?

Because it is already observed, both in leaving the incomplete uranium halos, and in the decay evidence along fissures and cracks.

I bought a hydrogen balloon for my son some time ago. The gas diffused out in a few days. Radon atoms are much larger than helium atoms. Balloons are much more prone to diffusion than rocks. It is absurd to believe that diffusion of Radon-222 occurs within a few days in granite.

This will be a big comfort to people worried about radon gas in their basements. All they need to do is fill their basements with hydrogen eh? Of course any "fissure" or "crack" in your helium balloon would lead to much more rapid outflow yes? Hate to burst your balloon like that.

There is some truth to this statement, as many of the polonium halo photos show cracks. Many polonium halo photos have only a single ring. If the radiocenter started off as 222Rn center, there should be 4 rings.

There should be halos with all different kinds of rings -- single, double, triple and quadruple. Strangely there are, thus radon flow from uranium explains the halos.

Also, in some photos (in my opininon majority of the polonium halos do occur along cracks)

Not just your opinion, but one shared in published articles.

Polonium halos occur without any visible cracks:

Key word "visible" -- what you have are sample after sample after sample taken by cleaving the rocks along convenient fissures in the rocks. Mica is lifted with normal everyday cellophane tape, demonstrating (a) weak bonds, and (b) ready fissure planes. Once you have removed the layer you have removed the evidence of the fissure.

Look at the pictures by Gentry where you have a number of halos all on the same wafer thin sample that he has removed from mica by the tape method: why are they all on the same plane and not distributed up and down from it?


Click to enlarge

Do you suppose they all formed along a single fissure plane in a easy to split crystal for some arcane purpose or because it was a fissure that allowed the radon gas to penetrate the crystal.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 6:31 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 189 of 265 (487377)
10-30-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 6:31 AM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
Anyway, the topic in this thread is more focused on Polonium halos found in rocks. Rocks are not like wood where there can be solutions moving.

Wrong.

Fluids, gases, ions, etc. all can most certainly move through rocks and/or individual minerals. This fact has been known for quite some time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 6:31 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by peaceharris, posted 10-31-2008 12:15 AM roxrkool has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 190 of 265 (487393)
10-30-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by RAZD
10-30-2008 7:56 AM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
RAZD writes:

If this is so, you would benefit admin and the rest of us by actually explaining it rather than just claim it was said.

What's point in reexplaining it? I have explained it before, and you have not understood.
Refer:
1. Message 21
2. Message 27
3. Message 34
4. Message 34
5. Message 43
6. Finally in the thread about Concordia dating of the Indian basins it was explained
a) That for a system not in equilibrium, using the ratio 238U/206Pb to calculate age is erroneous. (This proves that Gentry's estimate of few hundred thousand years could be erroneous since he did not check whether all the daughter products of 238U have reached equilibrium)

b) Radiogenic Pb need not be from the in situ decay of U

(refer http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/u238 )

I hope that a moderator will request RAZD to stop repeating statements that amount to saying that U halos must be old according to accepted physical laws of radiometry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2008 7:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2008 1:12 AM peaceharris has taken no action
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 10:30 PM peaceharris has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 191 of 265 (487400)
10-31-2008 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by roxrkool
10-30-2008 4:08 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
roxrkool writes:

Wrong.

Fluids, gases, ions, etc. all can most certainly move through rocks and/or individual minerals.

Do you believe the dates obtained through K-Ar dating techniques? Why do evolutionists believe that Ar did not separate from its parent in solid rocks, but believe that Radon could separate itself from its parent isotope?

Rn222 has just a half life of a few days compared to Argon-40 which is stable. If Rn222 could separate from its Uranium radiocenter within a few days, isn't it possible that Argon (having the luxury of all the time it needs) also leaves its Potassium center?

Edited by peaceharris, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by roxrkool, posted 10-30-2008 4:08 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by roxrkool, posted 10-31-2008 1:46 AM peaceharris has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 265 (487404)
10-31-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 9:35 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
What's point in reexplaining it? I have explained it before, and you have not understood.
Refer:
1. Message 21

Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. Whatever aka JohnFulton talking about coal.

2. Message 27

Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. You talking about Gentry errors. The obvious one is that he has the geology totally bollixed as has been demonstrated.

3. Message 34

Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. You repeating about Gentry errors and complaining about my comment, yet ignoring that Gentry does invoke rapid decay to cram the 238U halos into 6kyrs.

4. Message 34

The same message as (3) - double dipping or did you mean Message 37 which is about "embryonic" 238U halos:

quote:
Gentry’s definition of embryonic can be derived from this statement in his report:

“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the α-active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”

He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.

If you look at the decay chain of 238U, you will realize that all of its intermediate descendants have a half life less than the half life of 234U. The half life of 234U is 245 thousand years.

If a sample is significantly more than 245 thousand years, all intermediate members will reach equilibrium, that is for every atom of 238U that decays, there is one atom of 234U that also decays. For every 234U atom that decays, there will also be one 214Po that decays.

If you cannot see the 214Po ring, but can see the 238U ring, what does that mean? It means that there have been lots of 238U atoms that have decayed, but most of these decayed descendants have not yet become 214Po atoms. This implies that the sample is not significantly more than 245 thousand years.

Do you agree that Uranium halos which do not have the 214Po ring are not significantly more than 245 thousand years? Please answer this question, so that I can try to explain this concept more clearly.

Or do you think Gentry is blind… the 214Po halo exists but he can’t see it? If you think Gentry made a mistake, please use data to support your assertion, find the halos that have the 238U ring and the 214Po ring. Post the image in this forum and tell us how you identified each ring.


Gentry does not explain (in what was excerpted) how these "embryonic" halos form. Nor are your statements exactly accurate.

Decay occurs steadily from day one to today, at decreasing rates (exponential function), so that if you divide the time in half more than half of the decay will have occurred in the first half than in the second. You have enough decay events to form a robust and strong innermost ring for the single isotope 238U. Because of the difference in decay rates from 238U to other isotopes down to 206Pb, by the time you have passed the second half of the decay period that formed the robust and strong innermost ring, almost all of the products of the first half would have progressed down the chain to 206Pb. You should have more than half as much decay events for the rest of the chain, so you should have distinct bands for every isotope.

This is even more of a problem once you pass 234U, which forms the next band, and the decay rates keep getting smaller for later isotopes, thus guaranteeing that they too should have decayed enough to form visible bands by the time this band is formed to a robust and strong degree, as seen in the pictures. By the time you get to 226Ra, with a 1,602 year half-life, the subsequent decay rates are measured in days and should be occurring virtually instantaneously afterwards.


Click to enlarge

I have (still) not seen any explanation for the loss of these outer rings except the patently obvious one, of 222Rn (inert, gas, gets into anything) leaving the inclusions in question and decaying elsewhere. The failure to consider this is (to me) stunning.

5. Message 43

Another one where you are arguing about the age of the 238U halos, but you have some problems there too:

quote:
I have created a table below to show the ratio of the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay Po214 to the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay U238. The first column is assuming that the initial ratios of the isotopes were in equilibrium with U238 initially. ‘In equilibrium’ means that the amount of isotope present is proportional to the half life of that isotope. For example since the half life of 238U is 18200 times more than the half life of U234, the amount of U238 present is 18200 times more than that of U234.

The problem is that we are talking about an inclusion of 238U and the subsequent decay of the isotopes from 238U down to 206Pb. For every 238U atom that decayed the next isotope is produced and so on down the chain. If the 'equilibrium' state shows that there is no 222Rn, no 218Po, no 214Po and no 210Po that is because they all will have already decayed and should have made just as many band producing decay events as the 238U band producing decay events.

Or am I missing something.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 9:35 PM peaceharris has taken no action

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 193 of 265 (487405)
10-31-2008 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by peaceharris
10-31-2008 12:15 AM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
You are already in discussion with posters who know far more than I on the subject of isotopes and isotopic dating. I was simply pointing out that your statement is incorrect.

But to answer your question, yes, I have confidence in isotopic dating methods. I use those data quite often, in fact. However, that does not mean each date is accepted without question or scrutiny. It must make geologic sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by peaceharris, posted 10-31-2008 12:15 AM peaceharris has taken no action

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2105 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

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3844 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 195 of 265 (487455)
10-31-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by AlphaOmegakid
10-31-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Stiil no evidence of Rn222 halos
You really should address Message 157

Your circles are outside their intended mark. Why is this?

Are you purposefully trying hide the radon-222 ring or is it incompetence?

Anyone with even a little knowledge of this science can see this.

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.

It is clear from the pictures that the dakest ring width of the polonium-218 is AT LEAST HALF the width of the polonium-210 and radon-222 ring.
I also wanted to point out that the width from RAZD's DRAWN radon-222 to polonium-210 fits inside the width of polonium-218 ring.

AOKid, why do you think the closer you go to the center( where the radioactive source is), the darker it seems to get?

cavediver writes:

Just to add some colour to this:

and

These indisputably show your autocad circles as very wide of their intended mark, *even if* supposedly being marked to the outer edge of the observed halo.

Why is this?

This is in contrast to RAZD's images:

and

The Po214 autocad circle looks spot on. The Po218 autocad circle could be argued as being slightly short of the apparent maximum, by a few pixels, but nothing outside the error of visual measurement. ABE: Actually having looked at this again, I take this back. It looks perfect :)

Whatever the status of the "Po210/Rn222" halo, RAZD's autocad lines are far more accurate than AoK's. Anyone disagree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-31-2008 2:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by cavediver, posted 10-31-2008 4:46 PM dokukaeru has taken no action
 Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-31-2008 5:42 PM dokukaeru 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