Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

It is very speculative to say, “Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay”Here are some of Gentry’s data taken from:
Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification“More sensitive IMMA measurements on these U radiocenters revealed 238U/206Pb ratios (15) of approximately 2230; 2520; 8150; 8300; 8750; 18,700; 19,500; 21,000; 21,900; and 27,300 (again corrected for different ionization efficiencies).”“Compared to a 238U halo radiocenter, a 210Po halo inclusion should contain much less 238U (perhaps none at all) and much more of the 210Po decay product 206Pb. The IMMA analyses of Po halo inclusions showed that the 238U content was low, the 238U/206Pb ratios varying from 0.001 to 2.0.”There are halos with 238U/206Pb ratios as low as 0.001, as high as 27300. If a creationist has the liberty to speculate accelerated decay when explaining the low ratio of 0.001, an evolutionist also has the liberty to speculate ”decelerated decay’ to explain the high ratio of 27300.Instead of speculating, why not just say, “I am not intelligent enough to analyze the data and determine the time when these halos formed.”

After Gentry made erroneous calculation based on the ratio of Pb206:U238, he wrote, "Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb (15), these 238U/206Pb ratios raise some questions. For example, if the 238U/206Pb = 27,300 value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter, this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age"-quote from Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and CoalificationI have already explained that is erroneous to do calculations based solely on Pb206:U238. Tree suck ground water, and coal is from trees.Here is a quote regarding ground water from
http://de.scientificcommons.org/23859804"Extremely variable and elevated U-234/U-238 ratios (of 2-12) are characteristic."If there is a lot of U234, U234 also will decay to Pb206.So in either case, whether someone chooses to neglect U234 or whether he wants to be more accurate without neglecting U234, the conclusion is that U halos do not in any way prove an old earth.

No one even needs to propose accelerated nuclear decay. Gentry wrote,"Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb (15), these 238U/206Pb ratios raise some questions. For example, if the 238U/206Pb = 27,300 value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter, this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age"This was published in science vol 194. Even though what is published in a reputable journal need not be correct, Gentry and the reviewers at Science should know basic high school physics. In this case please believe what was published in Science rather than what RAZD keeps repeating.

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 -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.

Could you give us a photo of a fully developed Uranium halo. A halo where the 238U and the 214Po ring can be seen? You don't understand what I said in message 37.
Anyway, if accelerated radioactive decay did not take place, how old are the Uranium halos in Gentry's paper? Pls tell me how you arrive at your answer.Edited by peaceharris, : typo

There are 2 independent methods to estimate the age of the Uranium halos described in Gentry’s paper. Neither of these methods prove that the age of the halos is approximately 240000 years.The first method is based on the measured ratio of 238U/206Pb. Gentry wrote, “Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb . ”In Uranium mines, there will be enriched amounts of 238U as well as enriched amounts of all other members of the Uranium decay series. When groundwater flows through such a mine it will pick up all these isotopes on its way depending on the solubility. The solubility of all these isotopes depend on many external factors (Refer Flow-Through Dissolution of Uranium-Thorium Ore Dust, Uranium Concentrate, Uranium Dioxide, and Thorium Alloy in Simulated Lung Fluid | Radiation Protection Dosimetry | Oxford Academic)When trees suck groundwater, all elements present in the water might be sucked. However the elements need not be deposited homogenously along the tree’s capillaries. In some locations there may be more Uranium deposited, and at other locations there could be more Pb deposited. Gentry based his calculations without subtracting the initial Pb206 present in these Uranium centres. If he subtracted the Pb present during the initial formation of these Uranium radiocenters, he would obtain a younger age.The important point to remember here is if we do not subtract the initial 206Pb present, we will obtain an upper bound for the age of the sample. In note 15 of his report he gives a proof that there is “old” radiogenic Pb in these U-rich radiocenters.The second method to estimate the age is based on the claim that the Uranium halo can be seen without the 214Po ring. If the isotopes of the U238 decay series present in groundwater are in equilibrium, and if all these isotopes are deposited in the wood such that equilibrium is maintained, then subsequent decay of radio isotopes would also be in equilibrium . that is for every alpha particle emitted by the decay of U238, there will also be an alpha particle emitted by 214Po.If we can see the U halo, but cannot see the 214Po halo, then it implies that there have been lots of U238 atoms that have decayed, but not so many Po214 atoms that have decayed.There are 2 unknowns here:
1. The age of the sample.
2. The initial ratio of the isotopes of the decay series of U238.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 2nd column is based on the assumption that all isotopes other than U234 are in equilibrium with U238. The activity ratio of U234 is assumed to be 10 times more than that of U238. In other words, the initial amount of U238 is assumed to be 1820 times more than the initial amount of U234. This assumption is made because in some wells groundwater actually has such a high ratio (refer 234U/238U isotope ratios in groundwater from Southern Nevada: a comparison of alpha counting and magnetic sector ICP-MS - PubMed)The 3rd column is based on the assumption that all daughter products of U238 were not present initially in the U radiocentres. Table showing ratio of alpha particles emitted by the decay of Po214: alpha particles emitted by the decay of U238. Only entries highlighted in yellow can explain why Po214 ring is invisibleThe first row assumes the age of the sample 245500 years. The 2nd row assumes the age of the sample to be 24550 years, and the 3rd row assumes that the age is 2455000 years.We can conclude from the table above that if the sample is significantly more than 245500 years, the visibility of the Po214 ring should be comparable to the visibility of the U238 ring. We cannot exclude the possibility that the halo may be significantly younger than 245500 years since the visibility of the Po214 halo relative to that of U238 for a young sample depends on the initial amount of daughter isotopes present.I want to continue this debate only with those who know how to do the calculations related to radiometry. Here is a question for members who understand the principles of radiometry and who want me to continue debating this topic.If a sample only contains U238 at the beginning (100% U238), after 20 million years, what is the ratio of high energy alpha particles emitted by the decay Po214 to the low energy alpha particles emitted by the decay of U238?Edited by peaceharris, : Table not clear, and items highlighted in yellow not explainedEdited by peaceharris, : typo

This is a reply to Message 200, since I am replying regarding U-halos. Your calculation of isotopes that have decayed only applies to systems in equilibrium.The mistake here is that this calculation is not applicable to Uranium halos found in coal. Uranium inclusions in coal did not start as a system in equilibrium.It takes a few hundred thousand years for equilibrium among all the daughter products of 238U to be reached. Assume that Uranium is soluble in water, but Thorium isn’t. Then the tree would suck groundwater that contains Uranium but not Thorium. As the Uranium decays, the uranium halo forms. But since there is no Thorium, the halo due to 230Th will not start forming immediately, but will have to wait until a significant number of Uranium atoms have decayed.There are 2 ways to prove that the time taken for equilibrium has not elapsed for embryonic U halos.1. The ratio of 238U:206Pb is some of these Uranium radiocenters is very high (~27000).2. The 214Po halo is not visible, but the Uranium halo is visible.

The string of buckets is a good analogy... continue.

I don't think this calculation is right. Maybe if you show us your formulas we might understand what you are trying to say and correct you. If the ring is due to U238 is visible, then the ring due to U234 should also be visible. This is because the activity ratio of U234: U238 in many natural systems is close or greater than unity (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16322329)This means that for a Uranium inclusion in a solid that just formed, the U238 and U234 ring will form simultaneously. But if we start with the assumption that the Uranium radiocenter did not contain any Thorium and other isotopes initially, other rings due to other isotopes such as Radon and Polonium will have to wait until significant amounts of U234 have decayed.In other words 'the earliest second ring you could observe' is the same time as the first ring formation I don't think you are doing the math correctly. In K-Ar dating, the assumption used is that Argon being a gas gets evaporated before lava solidifies. After solidification, any Argon produced remains in the rock. If you are right in saying gases can continue to escape after a rock has been solidified, you are basically saying that every geologist that uses K-Ar and U-Pb dating could be grossly mistaken. Perhaps you should do some experiments to prove your point, and get some fame. You might want to consider asking creationist organizations for funding since they too might be delighted to see mainstream scientists making serious mistakes.Edited by peaceharris, : typo

So what if a rock is porous? Does rock porosity in any way prove your point that radon gas can sublime out of a rock? To explain Polonium halos you were saying the opposite thing, deposition inside the rock after the rock has solidifed. To explain embryonic Uranium halos you are saying that radon escapes from inside the Uranium inclusion.Gentry had a fine way to excuse himself of answering his critiques. He asked his critiques to create Polonium halos on a granite that initially had none, since his critiques were of the opinion that Polonium halos formed inside the granite after the granite solidified.RAZD, if you want your theories to become established fact, I suggest you perform an experiment where Noble gases can be removed from the rock without heating the rock or an experiment where Polonium halos can be formed in the rock after the rock has solidified.Experiments have already been done which prove that a lot of Helium is retained in a rock. Helium is much smaller than Radon atoms so it should be easier for He to escape (yet significant amounts of He is retained). Not only that, you are saying that Radon which has a half-life of a few days (compared to stable Helium) can actually escape from the Uranium inclusion. I do not want to waste any more time arguing against your theories which I think are extremely unlikely, if not impossible.Regarding your radiometric formulas, I still haven’t seen the formula you used to come up with your statement that “starting with 100% of 10^9 decay events for the first ring formation from 238U decay, and running through the buckets, at ~490,000 years I am getting ~45% of 10^9 230Th production from 234U decay”

You are saying that Radon can escape from the Uranium inclusion. This is different from 'movement of gas through fissures'. Deep beneath the earth, molten rock will release gases produced from radioactive decay. This gas may find its way to the earth's surface because soil and rocks are porous.You are trying to argue that gases escapes from solid rock that has already solidified, and by saying that you are implying that the vast majority of mainstream scientists are making serious mistakes by trusting results obtained through K-Ar and U-Pb dating since you are saying noble gases escape from solid rock. The method you are using is very lengthy, and I find it hard to understand what you are saying. Please use ”standard’ formulas that everyone uses.Let U238(0) be the initial number of U238 atoms present in an Uranium inclusion. Let U238(T) denote the number of U238 atoms remaining after time (T) has elapsed,. Then the number of alpha particles emitted during that time interval T from the decay of U238 can be calculated asU238(0)-U238(T)To calculate the number of alpha particles emitted during that time interval T from the decay of U234, the formula isU238(0)-U238(T) + U234(0) - U234(T)You may assume anything you want for U238(0) and U234(0). To calculate U238(T) and U234(T), please use the formulas at http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/pmrp/GY309/Module6/m6.htmlYou may neglect Th234 and Pa234, assuming that U238 decays directly U234. You will get an accurate result by making this assumption.To explain the embryonic Uranium halo found at http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-6-a.jpg tell me what assumption you are using for the initial amount of U238(0), U234(0) and T.Whatever assumption you use, your end result should explain the following observations:1. There are 2 rings that can be seen with the same clarity, this implies that the number of alpha particles that formed these 2 rings are approximately equal.
2. There is a 3rd ring slightly visible, so the number of alpha particles that created this barely visible ring should be much less than the number of alpha particles for the 2 inner rings.
3. Other rings are not visible, so the number of alpha particles that have been emitted to form the other invisible rings should be less than the 3rd slightly visible ring.In my opinion if you assume the value of T is ~500000 years as you stated earlier, you will not be able to explain those 3 observations, anyway maybe I am mistaken.

No. There are many photos of halos (including the embryonic halo being discussed at http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-6-a.jpg ) where the radiocenter is not along a fracture. Without any visible conduit for Radon, you are claiming that Radon escapes the radiocenter.

OK, I understand your method of explaining the embryonic halo and your math is correct.The problem with your explanation is it doesn’t follow the principle of Uniformitarianism. You are assuming that the amount of U234 in the radiocenter was 0 initially and then showing that the embryonic halo is ~500000 years. If you start with the assumption that the initial activity of U234 was approximately the same as U238, (since this is what is observed in all natural waters and magmas today) you will be forced to reduce your estimate by a factor of ~10. If you want to insist that your assumption is reasonable, you should find a source where the amount of U234 is 0, then you can argue that possibly 500000 years ago we could find a similar source having no U234.The second problem with your method is it gives a lot of freedom to interpret data the way you believe it to be. While discussing Po-halos, you were arguing that the daughter products get accumulated in the radiocenter, and while discussing U-halos you argue that Uranium daughter products leave the radiocenter. Crystal rocks have cleavage planes that are weak so any crack would probably occur along the plane. Planes having more radiocenters will be weaker since radiation weakens bonding.Any radiometric method can be modified using your method to ”explain’ results different from the theory. You are basically doing what many geologists do to explain discordance of U-Pb dating of zircon. Whenever data plots below the Concordia curve, they say there has been Pb loss from the zircon. Whenever data plots above the Concordia curve, they say there has been Pb gain to the zircon.The difference between you and them is that you are claiming that there has been radon loss/gain to justify your theory, while they are claiming there has been Pb loss/gain to justify their theory.

There are indeed many sources enriched in U234, but let’s be generous to RAZD. Even if he wanted to assume that the initial activity ratio of U234: U238 was as low as 0.8, we should allow him (see Florida Geological Survey | Florida Department of Environmental Protection )The isotope percentage of U238 is 99.27%
The isotope percentage of U235 is 0.72%
Half life of U238=4.463e9 years
Half life of U235=7.04e8 yearsSo activity of U238 is 99.27*7.04e8 / 0.72/ 4.463e9 (=21.7) times greater than that of U235This explains why people usually match only rings of daughter products of u238 while determining the origin of each halo.

You first started assuming that all isotopes of the U238 decay chain were in equilibrium initially . If all isotopes of the U238 decay chain in the radiocenter start off being in equilibrium, then all rings would be visible. The very definition of ”embryonic Uranium halos’ is that the halos due to the decay of Uranium can be seen, but the halos due to the decay of other products of the U238 decay chain cannot be seen.Then you used the assumption that there is only U238 without U234, and explained that it could be 500000 years. No scientist would take your assumption seriously that 500000 years ago you could find a source with U238, but without U234. Dude, you don’t understand anything! I don’t need to explain it, all I need to do is assume that others who read my posts understand that if U234 is in equilibrium with U238 when the rock is formed, the U234 ring will form simultaneously with the U238 ring. There are people who are able to understand this without me explaining it. No, Radon trapped in a solid doesn’t behave like a gas. It is known that helium and Argon stay inside the rock that has cooled down.People have experimented and found out that by heating a rock you can cause these inert gases to escape from the rock. The Radon atoms is bigger than both Helium and Argon, so it follows that it is easier for He and Argon to escape from a rock compared to Radon.Furthermore Radon -222, the inert gas being discussed has a half life of a few days compared to Argon and Helium that are stable. You are trying to convince people who know that Argon cannot inspite of being a stable atom that Radon-222 can escape within a few days! Good luck to you.Furthermore, even expert evolutionists have understood inert gases stay embedded in a rock that has cooled down. Joe Meert wrote, “The temperatures at which minerals close is easily verifiable through experimentation and this has been conducted numerous times including the famous experiments of Bowen” - One of the main objections to radiometric dating Creationists also have done experiments checking whether helium can escape from rocks and they also know that most helium is retained in the rock at low temperatures. Try doing a google search on metamictization. There are scientists, (other than Gentry) who have concluded that Uranium radiocenters formed during crystallization. - refer Geochemical Journal Vol 10, pg 188. Are there scientists who share your view that fissures and Uranium radiocenters go together? On the contrary U/Pb is one of my favorite radiometric methods. I have understood that U-Pb data can provide an upper bound for the age of the sample and I have used U/Pb data to show others that coal beds are few orders of magnitude younger than what evolutionists say.U/Pb calculations based on reasonable assumptions are a bete noir with you. Understanding embryonic U halos is a prerequisite to understand the more complete U halos, and I have no intentions to explain the more complete U- halos to someone who either doesn’t understand the embryonic ones or is in a state of denial. We are in agreement here. But you need to invoke the unrealistic assumption that there was a source having U238, but without U234, 500000 years ago. I agree with you, there’s nothing I can do to convince you that embryonic Uranium halos are young. I am wasting my time reading your posts and replying to you.