(914) Tue 13 May 97 10:33 Rcvd: Thu 22 May 22:54 By: John Brawley To: Fredric Rice Re: Polonium halos St: Rcvd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:41bf 22ad5420 @MSGID: 1:100/435.1 8ff5081a @REPLY: 1:218/890@FidoNet 41910e2d On 11 May 97, Fredric Rice wrote: FR> Did you write the Talk Origins FAQ on Polomium halos? jb> Polonium. I did, yes. FR> It's a fascinating piece. I don't presume to understand everything FR> in the piece yet it sounds as though you've discovered the answer to FR> an honest Creationist-loved mystery. If you didn't grasp it all, then I need to rewrite it. The "polonium halo" creationist claim is difficult, I admit, since it depends on knowing some "nuclear physics" (the 238U decay chain, what alpha particles are, and so forth). Interestingly, its very difficulty makes it nearly impossible for the creationists to use in _debates_: it's not something the average member of "the choir" possesses the knowledge to understand. That makes it a toughie for _anti_-creationist argumentation as well. But, in principle it's simple enough. I must need to rephrase or simplify the paper for "public consumption." (It was written in 'scientific' style, for people who were deep into that particular creationist claim. Now: the "answer?" I don't know. Much needs to be done, to "empiricize" more of it. For example: I have no computer model of a mica crack with a rubber ball bouncing around in it, to show that a small anomaly in that crack (wide spot; corner; restriction; etc.) will "hold" the radon atom for the average four days it takes to decay and stop being an inert gas atom. I think it is a perfectly _reasonable_ alternate hypothesis, it violates no known science, and my samples show microscopic evidence of what I _should_ be seeing if my hypothesis is correct, but as noted in the paper, a _definitive_ test must be mounted (I don't have access to the necessary equipment), to differentiate "polonium" halos from "radon" halos. There must be twice as many individual alpha-particle "hits" (tiny disturbances of the mica crystal lattice, many millions of which are what makes the halo darker than the surrounding mica) in the innermost of the three visible rings, as are in either of the other two, outer, rings. Until that test is mounted on Gentry's own halo samples, and/or on my best "polonium" halo samples, my hypothesis will remain just a decent alternative--a _possible_ mechanism, even with the general evidence I already have. Thanks for the compliment. My work and paper in this specific instance gives the Holy_Smoke denizens a slightly different impression of me, eh? (*grin*) FR> I wonder if it will be yet another boot-to-the-head that will last FR> for decades as Creationists continue to unreason. I suspect that the above-mentioned test will have to be done, before the cretinists will shut up. Perhaps Gentry himself will _never_ shut up about it, and never agree that my mechanism explains the haloes while his remains unscientific, but that'll be OK so long as the REST of them drop the "Gentry" argument. (My paper doesn't directly address his "coalified wood" data, although the mechanism to account for it is identical (individual-atom radon migration), so that's another reason for me to rewrite the paper.) jb> Thank you. Real field and "lab" work is quite different from jb> simply arguing philosophical falsifiables/nonfalsifiables. FR> Yeah, having testable samples which others can use to replicate or Yes, but there's a 'downside': Gentry has _magnificent_ samples, many of which can't be reproduced (they were the former property of Mdme. Curie- Langevant, THE Mdme. Curie's daughter). Many of his sources can't be re-traced (Madagascar; some unspecified mines in Canada). Gentry is in _possession_of_ those magnificent samples, and in order to use THOSE, Gentry would have to agree to let them be subjected to the rigors of extreme high-magnification devices (scanning and/or transmission electron microscope, atomic force microscope, etc.). I strongly doubt Gentry would be willing to do that. (IOW, yeah, Gentry's got _testable_ samples, as do I, but perhaps only mine would be usable by others, to replicate the examination of them....) FR> refute one's results. Ted Holden wants to pretend a selection of FR> rocks he has are bones and that they're evidence that evolution is FR> "wrong" somehow. When his samples were tested by other labs, they FR> found conclusively that the samples are rocks. Ah, but did Tedster _agree_ with the labs' findings? I suspect Gentry is _aware_ of my paper, and may even have read it, but apparently he doesn't see any need to address its content since it hasn't yet been published in any _peer-reviewed_ scientific journal. I should correct that oversight. I'm _terribly_ irresponsible and lazy. FR> Arguing upon testables like this is much safer than untestables. }:-} IMHO, it's the ONLY way to establish "truth" (in the form of "facts") about the Natural world. Other types of investigation may be useful, but until they generate a testable, they're just "other ways of finding questions to ask." jb> (You have permission to link to my paper, or to extract FR> Thanks. I've created a Talk Origins folder here and have been making FR> all the files available. You're welcome. I just found out that I have 5MB free webspace with my ISP, so I'm working on a webpage as well. Creating HTML .docs looked complicated before I tried; now I realize it's primarily a bore.... *g* Jno B. : jbrawley@creation.org (GenesisNet<-->Internet Gate) : jbrawley@jcn1.com (ISP account) : FidoNet: 1:100/435.1 GenNet 33:6250/1.1 * Origins Talk BBS / M.A.C., St. Louis, MO, (314) 821 1078 * ... DOS never says "EXCELLENT command or filename"... --- PPoint 2.00 * Origin: The Quantum Sword (1:100/435.1) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 114/262 441 124/1 130/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 100/435 525 270/101 396/1 218/907 801