That's not the same thing. First of all, there may or may not be a mechanism which controls the timing of decay. Nobody has yet discovered one. You want to claim "quantum tunneling" is the means of decay? This is an ineffective dodge. You still need to answer the timing issue. What allows one particle to tunnel, while preventing another? Do the atoms poll their neighbors? How do they know when to decay? Who sets their schedule?
Your lack of knowledge of a mechanism does not mean there isn't one, nor that the process is not well understood by physicists -- the ones measuring the data and making those graphs that show the relationship, and that the experimental results match the calculated decay rates and alpha energies.
Quantum tunneling is based on quantum mechanics, which is calculated with field equations. These are based on probabilities due to the uncertainty principle, the principle that says we can't know which two protons and two neutrons will come together and tunnel out of an atom or even which atom it will tunnel out of ... however, like calculating the probability of flipping coin can predict the overall results while being totally incapable of predicting a single toss, probability calculations can predict the overall effects:
Decay will happen when the appropriate combinations make an isotope radioactive, and energy of the alpha particle will be related to the decay rate.
Your words are numerous, but they don't contain answers to my questions. Where is the timing mechanism? I don't think my questions were the least bit unclear.
The problem for you is pretty clear. This isn't what I argued. I never said there is no decay.
It doesn't matter what you fail to discuss, or how you try to move the goalposts around, as the fact is that without quantum tunneling decay would not exist.
Failing to make a stupid argument is something I try to do often. It hardly constitutes "moving goalposts".
We know that decay does occur. Nobody said that you said that it didn't,
More doubletalk, eh?
The problem for you is that if there is no way to surmount the barrier/wall, that then there is no radiation.
As I pointed out, this isn't my problem at all. It isn't in conflict with anything I've said.
I noted that your migration stories require decay to cease, but I never advocated the position for one instant. If this is a problem for anyone, it's a problem for talkdeceptions, Linear, and yourself.
Seeing that you decline to answer whether or not decay must always be the same, or if it can be suspended to allow for migration fantasies; I shall consider your dilemma unresolvable.
Not at all, as this is
your argument, your straw man, and it is
obviously false as well.
Straw man? Your own source said that spherical halos indicate post-kinematic formation. Let me spell that out: decaying elements which are moving don't make spheres.
The rocks that show polonium halos are infected with uranium inclusions and uranium halos, and they are saturated in radium, a gas that readily dissolves in water as well. These rocks also show fissures, cracks and minute pockets where the radon gas or radon carrying water can easily reach, and along those fissures -- because of the radon being saturated through the rock -- we should see your "migrating tunnel" if your assertion were true, and we don't. Not one. Anywhere. Therefore your claim that a "migration tunnel" would have to form is falsified by the evidence. Simply put, you are wrong (again).
So you contradict your own source, and common sense & invoke magic migration? Fine. I'm willing to leave it at that.
The pics show where the fissures are in relation to the halos. If there were so much all-fired "saturation", there would be halos surrounding these fissures. But hey - have your silly magic.
To make it doubly clear. Migration leaves telltale signs. RAZD says this is false because there are no telltale signs. Science (both creationists and RAZD's source) says no telltale signs = no migration. But RAZD insists there must have been migration, and it somehow left no evidence.
The pictures show what paths are available for migration, and they don't meet the requirements.
Even magic migration wouldn't solve his problem; that's what's even funnier. Unless it's polonium doing the magic migrating. Anything else, any of the "parent" elements, would have to decay at the destination, and guess what! This decay would leave evidence. It would make its own halo. So, just to be fair, I should ask: is it polonium migrating magically?
(Is anyone counting how many ways the migration fantasy is wrong? I don't know if records are kept, but this is pretty impressive.)
What do we see? We do see tracks with halos like beads along the fissures and cracks, often overlapping, but alway centered on concentrations of deposited polonium.
I prefer to see with my own eyes. I have no confidence in yours.
It is not a conclusion of scientists that this would occur, it is another of the observed pieces of evidence that shows that radon does cause polonium halos along fissures and cracks.
This appears to be your own conclusion, and you do well to exclude "scientists" from the group sharing it.
Nothing curious at all about it, except that anyone would try to pass it off as a "prediction". That, and the idea that anyone would bother with such a roundabout method of calculating.
Curious that you contradict your own earlier statement: "
You want to claim "quantum tunneling" is the means of decay? This is an ineffective dodge. " ... or is your argument just based on denial of whatever is said?
Actually my argument remains clear and valid. Your attempt to snip a piece out of context has failed here, in case you didn't notice. There's no contradiction. Try not to bungle your next out-of-context quote. It wouldn't be as funny the second time around.
Yes, and the chart's been jimmied quite a bit to obtain straight looking lines. Note the numbers on the horizontal and vertical scales, and their spacing. Presenting this chart to an educated audience who understand that the lines are actually curves is one thing. Trying to pass them off as actually straight is another.
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/dhyrziwlwz.jpg)
(click on image for larger view)
Yes you can see how "jimmied" the lines are. The horizontal scale, by the way, is logarithmic, so that exponential (curved) functions show up as straight lines, standard practice in science.
Sadly, for CTD, it looks like he is wrong again.
Enjoy.
Thanks. It's much better if people understand the nature of what they're looking at. False perceptions promote errors. The vertical scale appears to go up by powers of 10, I notice, and the highest mark on the scale is 1,000,000,000,000,000.
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ovmvvbiwkp.jpg)
