Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
68 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 67 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
jgbrawley
Junior Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 3
From: Missouri, USA
Joined: 11-29-2008


Message 211 of 265 (489780)
11-30-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
11-29-2008 4:06 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
I was poking around on the web, checking how far my work had spread in the months since last I checked, and found you here, defending the radon-222/polonium-210 ring misidentification/confusion issue that I mentioned in my paper.
I wanted to thank you for the effort you've put into this. The work on those images is nice. ( I also left a correction for the person who accused me of lying in my paper, about talking my way into Oak Ridge back in 1992 when I did that work. I most assuredly *did* get inside with nothing but my sincerity and knowledge of the issue.)
Thanks for your support.
jgbrawley@charter.net

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2008 4:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2008 8:25 PM jgbrawley has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 212 of 265 (489912)
11-30-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jgbrawley
11-30-2008 12:03 AM


Thanks, JG Brawley
Welcome to the fray, jgbrawley.

It is always nice to hear direct from the authors, and I agree with your objection to AlphaOmegaKid's portrayal. He likes to combine the Ad lapidem fallacy with the Argument from intimidation fallacy as excuses to disregard evidence that is contrary to his beliefs.

He is not entirely to blame, however, as this behavior is evidence of cognitive dissonance, where one is trying desperately to keep a false belief alive through denial and attempts to discredit the sources. There is a lot of anger in his posts as well.

Message 210 As to the fuzziness of the Po-210/Rn-222 ring, remember that the Radon atom contributing to the ring would be *in motion* when it decayed, but the subsequent daughters --218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, would not be, the Po having become electronegative once it was no longer Radon.

And it need not work for every 222Rn atom that passes through the location in question. As long as there is a steady production of 222Rn there is opportunity for one to decay in just the right spot to match others, a spot that is only slightly more "attractive" for inert gas molecules (and the same holds for daughter isotopes if the 222Rn does not end up in an anchored 218Po atom). Because the decay half-life is so small compared to those of the 238U isotopes that form the uranium halos in the same rock, there is plenty of time to accumulate sufficient atoms to make a halo as dark as the uranium ones.

Certainly when we are talking about the isotopes after 222Rn we have the question of ionic charge/s to the atoms and the attraction of certain ions to bond with the crystal lattice where there is an ionic imbalance. After they decay they end up neutral (206Pb) and the orignal ionic imbalance in the crystal lattice is restored, attracting the next polonium (or other isotope) to bond with the crystal.

Gentry even provides evidence that this process is in fact occurring, when he states that the centers of polonium halos have disproportionately high levels of 206Pb, something that would be a natural result of a deposition process.

You may also be interested in the sister thread Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) and old earth AND (b) constant physics?

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

Edited by RAZD, : added end link

Edited by RAZD, : added


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 211 by jgbrawley, posted 11-30-2008 12:03 AM jgbrawley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jgbrawley, posted 12-01-2008 7:58 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
jgbrawley
Junior Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 3
From: Missouri, USA
Joined: 11-29-2008


Message 213 of 265 (490039)
12-01-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
11-30-2008 8:25 PM


Re: Thanks, JG Brawley
Thanks for responding.

I'd like to comment on two things, one from here and the other from the forum you pointed me toward:

1) (here): Note that when each radon atom decays and sticks (assuming it does) and then goes through the Po decays to 206Pb, it leaves a physical object of some size behind (a lead atom) that wasn't there before. Thereby, gradually over time, the crack or conduit *narrows* at that location, altering the probabilities for subsequent radon atoms to get past the ever-narrowing location. This should cause some strings and drifts of haloes to show strange distributions of different-density haloes (which is what I observe in the mica).

2) (there; the 238U earth-age discussion) : You immediately (I'm starting reading at the thread beginning) mention the type of damage done to the mica by the alpha particles, and I see you note high resolution transmission electron microscope studies have been done on some haloes in some mica. This I think (I mention it in passing, in my paper) leads to the idea that one could *unambiguously* differentiate a "polonium" halo (if any exist) from a radon halo:
Given a pie-wedge shaped section, its point centered on the radiocenter, each ring section in the pie wedge *must* have the same number of damage locations in it, IFF it is a "polonium" halo, but the *radon* halo must have twice as many damage locations in the innermost ring, as are in either of the other two, the outer, rings.

If these damage locations can be imaged, to the extent of actually being able to count them more or less accurately, then identification of a radon halo as opposed to a "polonium" halo, becomes trivial.

It is a pleasure to read in these forums. I'll probably continue to check in from time to time, and it is definitely a pleasure to read *you*, showing so much detailed understanding and interest.
Please keep on keepin' on.

Sincerely,
John Brawley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2008 8:25 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 214 of 265 (499102)
02-16-2009 6:25 PM


I can certainly say this evidence for creation is still without a serious rebuttal. I have a video on this subject and there are a few question that need to be answered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyfsA8tEzu8

I will summarize the questions here:

1) If radon did travel through these cracks, where is the trail?
2) If radon did travel to the polonium cite, how did it do so through solid rock.
3) (more of a fact) Polonium halos do not have a radon-222 ring.
4) If polonium-218 halos formed from a secondary source, why don't we find polonium-218 halos in coalified wood?
5) If polonium-218 halos did form from a secondary source, why do we find the ratios we expect in polonium-210 halos found in coalified wood, but not in polonium 218 halos.

With these questions still unanswered, this seem to be still evidence for creation.


Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2009 11:21 PM You replied

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 265 (499159)
02-16-2009 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Phydeaux
02-16-2009 6:25 PM


Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
Welcome to the fray Phydeaux,

I can certainly say this evidence for creation is still without a serious rebuttal.

I can certainly say that either you have not read this thread, or you have not understood it.

1) If radon did travel through these cracks, where is the trail?

Does a leaf leave a trail in the air? You want footprints maybe?

2) If radon did travel to the polonium cite, how did it do so through solid rock.

When it was not solid. The rocks they are found in have uranium inclusions that entered the rock structure through fractures before it resolidified.

3) (more of a fact) Polonium halos do not have a radon-222 ring.

Curiously this picture proves you are wrong:


Click to enlarge

Those match Gentries values for the four radii btw.

4) If polonium-218 halos formed from a secondary source, why don't we find polonium-218 halos in coalified wood?

Because it is a different crystal lattice that has different affinities for various elements.

Because there is a longer time to get to the next ring after 218Po than to get from 222Rn to 218Po.

Because you have a couple of β- decay events after 218Po that are not in the decay chain from 222Rn to 218Po, creating a different charged particle to be attracted to the crystal lattice.

5) If polonium-218 halos did form from a secondary source, why do we find the ratios we expect in polonium-210 halos found in coalified wood, but not in polonium 218 halos.

You sound confused here - are you talking about radii rather than ratios? One would only expect to find 214Po and 210Po rings after the time has passed for 218Po and 222Rn halos.

Now that your "evidence" for creation has been refuted, do you want to see if you can refute the evidence for an old earth?

see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) and old earth AND (b) constant physics?
http://< !--UB www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=130&m=1 -->http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=130&m=1< !--UE-->
see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

Edited by RAZD, : englitch


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 214 by Phydeaux, posted 02-16-2009 6:25 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 1:35 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 216 of 265 (499182)
02-17-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by RAZD
02-16-2009 11:21 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
If you watched my video, you might have understood what I was saying better.

"When it was not solid. The rocks they are found in have uranium inclusions that entered the rock structure through fractures before it resolidified."

Oh yeah. I remember reading something about that. I'm not sure if this would be true of fluorite. I will need to look into that more. Thanks.

Curiously this picture proves you are wrong:

I am not sure if eye balling a picture of a polonium halo, which has been damaged by Gentry's experiments, with a center darkened by electron microbeam analysis is going to be totally reliable. How exactly did you come up with this conclusion?

Besides, Robert Gentry reported, using much more advanced techniques than photoshop, that polonium halos do not have a radon-222 ring here:

http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-perspective.htm

Because it is a different crystal lattice that has different affinities for various elements.

Maybe, but why?

Because there is a longer time to get to the next ring after 218Po than to get from 222Rn to 218Po.

That's my thought.

Because you have a couple of β- decay events after 218Po that are not in the decay chain from 222Rn to 218Po, creating a different charged particle to be attracted to the crystal lattice.

Kind of just sounds like a guess, but ok. Anything to back up this hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2009 11:21 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2009 7:34 AM You replied

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 265 (499200)
02-17-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Phydeaux
02-17-2009 1:35 AM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
"When it was not solid. The rocks they are found in have uranium inclusions that entered the rock structure through fractures before it resolidified."

Oh yeah. I remember reading something about that. I'm not sure if this would be true of fluorite. I will need to look into that more. Thanks.

I showed you how to use quotes on this forum. It isn't difficult, and it improves communication tremendously.

I am not sure if eye balling a picture of a polonium halo, which has been damaged by Gentry's experiments, with a center darkened by electron microbeam analysis is going to be totally reliable. How exactly did you come up with this conclusion?

So you are telling me that the damage to the center changes the rings themselves? Do you have evidence of this from other photos?

Really, the problem you have is that there is evidence of 222Rn in that photo, and you can either deny it or accept it.

This is the same photo matched with his photo of a uranium halo that shows distinct halos for 222Rn and 210Po:


Click to enlarge

Those two rings match up in both photos just as well as the other rings common to both match up, and the only difference is the core rings from 238U to 234U in the decay chain.

Curiously, what this one photo shows is that the concept that 222Rn cannot be the source for polonium halos is invalidated, and denial will not change that simple pervasive and conclusive fact.

Kind of just sounds like a guess, but ok. Anything to back up this hypothesis?

Strangely I don't feel like spending the time on it, the hypothesis that Po halos only come from "primordial" Po is invalid.

Oh yeah. I remember reading something about that. I'm not sure if this would be true of fluorite.

It is.

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 216 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 1:35 AM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 10:55 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 219 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 2:48 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 218 of 265 (499208)
02-17-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD
02-17-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
I showed you how to use quotes on this forum. It isn't difficult, and it improves communication tremendously.

Sorry, I thought it was just a sig a first.

So you are telling me that the damage to the center changes the rings themselves? Do you have evidence of this from other photos?

No. I was just saying that this isn't exactly the most favorable conditions.

Really, the problem you have is that there is evidence of 222Rn in that photo, and you can either deny it or accept it.

What I meant by "how did you come up with this conclusion," was where did you get the information. Where exactly did you get the sizes? I looked more through the 15 pages and found the answer. I hope to check it out myself.

It is going to be hard for me to accept something which was not published in a peer-reviewed journal above something which was and it's going to be hard for me to accept something which uses a more primitive method than Gentry has used, but I would like to learn more about what you did.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.

Edited by Phydeaux, : quote

Edited by Phydeaux, : quotes again ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2009 7:34 AM RAZD has seen this message

    
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 219 of 265 (499227)
02-17-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD
02-17-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
Well, I'm not sure how you did your calculations, but I did a simple comparison of the sizes of the rings and this is what I found:

I calibrated the halo to the 214 ring at 34.6 μm.


Click to enlarge

As you can see the 218 ring matched nicely:


Click to enlarge

The 210 ring was off by 0.3 μm. This could be something weird with this particular halo or picture though. Further testing may be necessary:


Click to enlarge

I did the same to the Ur halo:


Click to enlarge

The 218 ring match nicely:


Click to enlarge

Before we get to the radon-222 ring recognize that every radon ring measurement in the chart has ring about 1 μm larger (not 0.3) than the polonium-210 ring. (Radon-222 is not measured in this rock.) One might predict similar results. I founnd that the radon-222 ring is about 20.7 μm.


Click to enlarge

The 210 halo was about 19.7. Meaning a difference of about 1 μm. Exactly what I expected, and still much larger than the other halo you observed:


Click to enlarge

Conclusion: Although there is a slightly larger halo than is expected in the polonium-210 ring we have seen, this could have been an abnormality; perhaps due to Gentry's x-ray analysis. Either way, it does not match with the size of the radon-222 halo found in uranium halos. Polonium-218, by your method which I consider to be a bit primitive (I would rather point to Gentry's experiments), has been shown to not to contain a radon-222 halo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2009 7:34 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2009 8:52 PM You replied

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 265 (499254)
02-17-2009 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Phydeaux
02-17-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
Hi Phydeaux,

You are only using single point to point measurements, not circles, and the center of one cannot be easily determined, and there is variation around the edges which can cause errors in your method.

By comparison, I matched concentric circles to the rings to determine their proportions. They were then calibrated with the 23.50 μm value for 218Po, which is common to all halos, it is dense enough to measure easily, and it is not being subject to confusion with other decay isotope stages.

The 214Po halo was used as a check to sizing of the circles to the damage bands: if the value for 214Po is too high then the picture was scaled up too much, while if the value for 214Po is too low then the picture not scaled up enough. It should be 34.6 μm for a good match, and the published values for 210Po is 19.5 μm and for 222Rn it is 20.5 μm.

I did this first on a 238U halo in Flourite that shows a 222Rn band, to validate the method and compare results to the published data for all the discernible rings:


Click to enlarge

Then I did this twice with this "polonium" halo in Flourite, first making every circle just inside the ring edges, where damage appeared at greatest density, in the same (validated) manner as was done on the 238U halo, and then again, with circles just outside the outer edge of the rings, to check the method for sensitivity in making the ring circles. The second is what you saw before.

First (inside edge biased to match density of damage):


Click to enlarge

You will notice that these numbers agree very well with the published numbers and show a 1.14 μm difference between 210Po (at 19.18μm) and 222Rn (at 20.32 μm).

Very simply put, if there were no 222Rn in this halo, then there should be NO damage visible outside the 222Rn circle, which there (very visibly) is.

Second (outside edge biased):


Click to enlarge

This shows a 1.17 μm difference between 210Po (at 19.07 μm) and 222Rn (at 20.24 μm).

Here again, simply put, if there were no 222Rn in this halo, then there should be NO damage visible between the 210Po circle and the 222Rn circle, due to the bias, which there (very visibly) is.

Then, as a final check, I superimposed the rings from the 238U halo over this picture - you can see double rings where there was a slight variation between the circles used for the two halos - but clearly a match between 214Po rings, 218Po rings 210Po rings AND 222Rn rings from both pictures:


Click to enlarge

This match between the circles drawn from the two different pictures in the same rock type, Flourite, shows that there indeed is a 222Rn band in this "polonium" halo, and it is better called a 222RN halo (according to the scientific nomenclature of these things).

This last picture is the icing on the cake: if the method were erroneous there should not be the agreement between the two, and the degree of variation shown is well within limits of human error and cannot be explained by variation in the ring formations. I could just as easily use the numbers from the 238U halo for the rings in this 222Rn halo:

  • 19.50 μm for 210Po,
  • 20.54 μm for 222Rn,
  • 23.50 μm for 218Po (of course), and
  • 34.52 μm for 210Po.

The results are consistent, so this validates the process: as long as you are consistent to where you measure the rings in your approach you should get similar results, as the results are not sensitive to bias inside or outside.

The results also match the published values for these rings.

Now I want you to do a mental exercise: imagine the 238U circles scaled so that the 210Po circle (19.50 μm) matched the circle measured for the 222Rn ring on this picture (20.32 μm) - what radius do you think the outer circles would then have?

This is what AlphaOmegaKid did, and there were gaps between his circles and the outer rings - why do you suppose those gaps were there?

this could have been an abnormality; perhaps due to Gentry's x-ray analysis.

Not likely as the x-ray damage is the irregular black spot at the center, instead of purple - it is a different energy level. There is also no need to waste the time, energy, and cost of focusing the x-ray outside the immediate center.

Conclusion: Although there is a slightly larger halo than is expected in the polonium-210 ring we have seen, this could have been an abnormality;

Yet your method is prone to error - you have only measured one place on each ring to a point that is subjective in interpretation as the center of the halo, and you don't show one measurement in comaprison to another. It is a method that would be easy to fudge to fit the desired result.

Polonium-218, by your method which I consider to be a bit primitive ...

Curiously, your opinion has no effect on reality, nor does it change the measured values and the corroboration between the 222Rn halo and the 238U halo circles.

Interestingly your method still has error in it that is not explained.

Amusingly my method cannot be fudged to generate wanted results without this showing up in the last picture, where you can see and compare every one of the circles on the same picture.

Either way, it does not match with the size of the radon-222 halo found in uranium halos.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt eh? Strangely denial does not change the evidence.

Superimposing the 238U circles over the 222Rn halo shows, without a doubt, that it does indeed match the 222Rn AND the 210Po circles as well as it matches the two outer rings, a match that is not possible without the existence of the 222Rn band in this halo.

The only valid conclusion is that there was 222Rn involved in the formation of this halo, as that is the only conclusion that fits all the data. It fits it for the outer ring (34.52 μm for 210Po), it fits it for the next ring in (23.50 μm for 218Po) and it fits it for the two rings in question: 19.50 μm for 210Po, and 20.54 μm for 222Rn.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : englitch, clerty


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 219 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 2:48 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 11:21 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 221 of 265 (499333)
02-18-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
02-17-2009 8:52 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
I placed a one pixel sized red dot in the center from which I started every time. In the uranium halo the radiocenter containing lead is actually visible. As long as I start from the same spot, and measure in the same general direction it should be close enough to being correct. This was confirmed by the matching of the po-218 ring.

and there is variation around the edges which can cause errors in your method.

I don't think the variation makes that big of a difference. Using rings can actually be a greater problem because you must have it centered and flat around all the edges. You quite obviously have your rings in the middle of the rings. This allows a less precise placement. I measured to the edge of the rings.

Whether or not my measurements are correct doesn't really matter, because polonium halos have been measured by the people whom had the actual samples.

The results for the Po-210 ring in polonium halos is 19.8 μm. The results for the radon ring in uranium halos was 20.5 μm. I think it is silly that we are arguing over our measurements of a picture, when we have published results from scientist whom had better equipment. From Gentry's article in science 1974:

For example, note the slightly wider annulus (3.9 μm) between the 210Po and 218Po rings of the 218Po halo compared to the equivalent annulus (3.0 μm) in the 238U halo (Fig. 1, a, d, h, h', r, and r'). This is evidence that the 218Po halo indeed initiated with 218Po rather than with 222Rn or any other α-decay precursor in the U chain.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2009 8:52 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 02-18-2009 1:59 PM You replied
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2009 12:20 AM You replied

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2872 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 222 of 265 (499398)
02-18-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Phydeaux
02-18-2009 11:21 AM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
This allows a less precise placement. I measured to the edge of the rings

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 11:21 AM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 5:53 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 223 of 265 (499458)
02-18-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by cavediver
02-18-2009 1:59 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
1) How is measuring to the "edge" of the ring more accurate, when the ring intensity is almost certainly gaussian in nature.

Well, the inside of the band is wider in some places than others, and you know... it's not as exact. You have some room to move around when you have to put it somewhere in the colored band, rather than exactly on the edge.

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?

Maybe you should learn how a halo is formed first. That should answer the questions.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 02-18-2009 1:59 PM cavediver has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 02-18-2009 6:02 PM You replied

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2872 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 224 of 265 (499459)
02-18-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Phydeaux
02-18-2009 5:53 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
Maybe you should learn how a halo is formed first. That should answer the questions.

:laugh: 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 5:53 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 10:40 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 225 of 265 (499520)
02-18-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver
02-18-2009 6:02 PM


Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
Ok...

2) What has the edge measurement to do with anything???

He was claiming that marking from the edge would not be as accurate as marking from somewhere within the ring, so I replied saying that marking form the edge is more accurate. That's all this was about. I don't see why it matters though.

Why do you think the rings are radially extended?

Because radiation from polonium halo is radial? As polonium decays alpha particles are ejected radially and the alpha particles cause the discoloration we see. Perhaps I don't understand your question...

What would mark the outer limit of such a ring?

The edge? There is a point where enough alpha particles cannot reach to cause visible damage. It doesn't have to be that precise to prove the point though. Just within say 0.1-0.2 ┬Ám. of error. I don't really see why this matters though. We already know the size of the rings from the published results.

What would the outer limit of such a ring then represent?

Nothing.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 02-18-2009 6:02 PM cavediver has taken no action

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022