Why stellar evolution theory is false

[Martyrs44]

Nope. Red shift is used to measure the velocity.
Distance is an independent measurement.

You are wrong and I proved it and documented my sources.

Because of your obstinate refusal to be corrected despite expert opinion and documentation I am going to ignore you on all future posts.

<staff edit>

And deliberately misrepresenting what I say hardly adds to the credibility of your argument. Once could be misunderstanding, but repeating it after a clarification is not.

I'm not going to put up with that. <staff edit>So you're welcome to post others now because I won't acknowledge you.

 

[Assyrian]

I think what other posters can see is that you simply weren't able to deal with her reply. Instead you misrepresented what she said, and when challenged about that, you refuse to talk to her any more.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I know this is rather off-topic and a bit personal but I'll say it anyway ...
Does anyone else suspect Martyr44 is a sockpuppet of Kirkwhisper?

 

[Martyrs44]

To finish this off: gluadys did NOT establish her case nor anything close to it.

Look for yourselves. She didn't document a single statement she made since I made post #51. She didn't give a source for any position she gave.

I did. I quoted the experts in the field and revealed how she deliberately stonewalls the truth in this matter.

But I learned a long time ago that those infected with Orwellian style education can be adept in twisting the facts to make it seem they are correct when in fact they are not even close.

The most glaring thing is that she never even attempted to deal with the facts I brought out about Arp and his discoveries nor the quasar that exists between a distant galaxy and earth.

 

[Assyrian]

To finish this off: gluadys did NOT establish her case nor anything close to it.

Look for yourselves. She didn't document a single statement she made since I made post #51. She didn't give a source for any position she gave. Check it out for yourselves.

I did. I quoted the experts in the field and revealed how she deliberately stonewalls the truth in this matter.

But I learned a long time ago that those infected with Orwellian style education can be adept in twisting the facts to make it seem they are correct when in fact they are not even close.

The most glaring thing is that she never even attempted to deal with the facts I brought out about Arp and his discoveries nor the quasar that exists between a distant galaxy and earth.

She took your redshift argument apart and you couldn't answer her.

 

[gluadys]

To finish this off: gluadys did NOT establish her case nor anything close to it.

Look for yourselves. She didn't document a single statement she made since I made post #51. She didn't give a source for any position she gave.

Documentation of redshift and its causes is easy enough to find:

If a source of the light is moving away from an observer, then redshift (z > 0) occurs; if the source moves towards the observer, then blueshift (z < 0) occurs. This is true for all electromagnetic waves and is explained by the Doppler effect. Consequently, this type of redshift is called the Doppler redshift. If the source moves away from the observer with velocity v, which is much less than the speed of light (v \ll c), the redshift is given by

z \approx \frac{v}{c} (since \gamma \approx 1)

where c is the speed of light. In the classical Doppler effect, the frequency of the source is not modified, but the recessional motion causes the illusion of a lower frequency.​

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sure the sources listed in the references will give more detailed information if you need it.

The most glaring thing is that she never even attempted to deal with the facts I brought out about Arp and his discoveries nor the quasar that exists between a distant galaxy and earth.

That wasn't my purpose.

You made an erroneous statement about what causes redshift and that is the only point I am responding to.

 

[Assyrian]

Metherion dealt with the Arp question.

 

[samaus12345]

Then how do you explain the spiral galaxies glaudys?

 

[gluadys]

Then how do you explain the spiral galaxies glaudys?

I told you before, you are not seeing them as they are, but as they were. You won't see them as they are today for tens of billions of years (depending on how far away they are.) It will take that long for the light they are emitting today to reach us.

 

[samaus12345]

Glaudys Gentries radiopolonium halos in rocks are empirical evidence against deep time/big bang. I am intrigued do you accept these or reject them?

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys Gentries radiopolonium halos in rocks are empirical evidence against deep time/big bang. I am intrigued do you accept these or reject them?

I don't know enough about them to form an opinion one way or another.

Do you? What's your background in geology?

 

[metherion]

I reject Gentry's polonium halos based on what I know from inorganic/physical chemistry.

Gentry advanced the idea of polonium halos based on the alpha decay energy. However, the alpha decay energy from the U-235 and thorium 232 decay chains have energies in the same range as the U-238 decay chain. Heck, all polonium isotopes do. So, if what Gentry says is correct, and the halos come from alpha decay energy, then not only should there be halos from U-238 decaying, there should be halos WHENEVER polonium is involved, all the time, bar none. Yet there aren't. So, he can't be right.

The other refutations I've seen deal with geology and a bit more radiation than I know from my chemistry studies, so I can't comment on them, but I could link some with papers cited in them should you request it.



Metherion

EDIT: He also asserts that the ONLY WAY for something to happen is a supernatural cause. That discount the possibility of something being discovered later that does explain it. Considering a lot of his work was in the 70s to early 90s, that means there's at LEAST 15-40 years of work since some of his papers, depending on when he wrote them, during which time understanding could change. Saying "THE ONLY WAY IS FOR GOD TO HAVE DONE IT AND NOTHING COULD EVER BE DISCOVERED TO EXPLAIN IT" is both very very bad science and very bad God-of-the-gaps theology.

 

[Martyrs44]

Originally Posted by jinx25

Then how do you explain the spiral galaxies glaudys?​

​

I told you before, you are not seeing them as they are, but as they were. You won't see them as they are today for tens of billions of years (depending on how far away they are.) It will take that long for the light they are emitting today to reach us.

Jinx....that doesn't....make...any difference.

We already know that we are seeing into the distant past (by their assumed measurements). I don't argue with that. But what that Orwellianized individual refuses to acknowledge is that they are supposed to be the earliest/youngest objects in the universe and yet they appear as mature (and no different!) than those that are much closer to us. Hello?

Just for you to know, my friend Jinx, I am turning away from the TE's that display a complete unwillingness and/or inability in rational thought. My charge of Orwellian dialectic is no exaggeration for them.

 

[metherion]

I know he still can't see me, but again, what would an 'immature' galaxy look like? What differences should there be? What formations that 'mature' galaxies have should be absent? What features that 'mature' galaxies have lost should be present?

And I'm not seeing how at heart the 'THE FAR GALAXIES LOOK MATURE' argument is that much different than the 'half an eye' argument. They're old so they should look different! They shouldn't have everything today's galaxies do! What, should they look like HALF a galaxy?

Metherion

 

[samaus12345]

Ah k so the ones closer to us appear the same as the ones further away?

Metherion NGC said something similar. From U238 to Lb206 is 8 radioisotopes. The rocks contain 3 halos. They start 5/8 of the way down the decay chain. Even if there was 4 Rn222's half life is only ~4days so.... But your saying its from a completely seperate decay chain? Its still unrebutted in journals and i have to believe they would lurrrvvvvvv to explain it away but they cant?

 

[metherion]

Metherion NGC said something similar. From U238 to Lb206 is 8 radioisotopes. The rocks contain 3 halos. They start 5/8 of the way down the decay chain. Even if there was 4 Rn222's half life is only ~4days so.... But your saying its from a completely seperate decay chain? Its still unrebutted in journals and i have to believe they would lurrrvvvvvv to explain it away but they cant?

I'm saying that other elements and other isotopes of uranium have their own decay chains. These other decay chains contain polonium. Therefore, these other decay chains SHOULD make halos. But they don't. This means it cannot be the polonium causing the halos, or the OTHER elements and isotopes would ALSO have their OWN halos.

I've seen other ideas on how it happens involving radon (another element in the decay chain) migrating through cracks in the rock when there are halos, but it's a bit too... geology for me. However, the fact is, there are nowhere near the number of halos there SHOULD be if what Gentry said happened happened, and that's just one problem, not all of them.

U-238's decay chain contains 3 isotopes of polonium. U-235's decay chain contains 2 instances of polonium. Thorium-232's decay chain also contains 2 instances. This means that every instance of U-235 should have 2 halos, as should every instance of Thorium-232. Furthermore, some of the Uranium halos should be stronger because you don't find just U-238 or U-235, you have to purify/separate them (hence the terms 'enriched uranium' and 'depleted uranium'). But this isn't seen.

Now, according to
Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm, 9 pgs.
the rings are generally along microfractures in the minerals. Furthermore, the isotopes of radon produced in U-238, U-235, and Th-232 have different half-lives. U-238 gives rise to Rn-222, U-235 gives rise to Rn-219, and Th-232 gives rise to Rn-220. Rn-222 is the only one with a half life longer than 1 minute (3.8 days versus 3.92 seconds and 51.5 seconds), so it would make sense that the radon accumulating in the fractures would have something to do with the halos, and it explains why there aren't halos around U-235 or Th-232. Not confirmed, but explains more evidence than 'pure polonium was poofed into various types of granite, but only around U-238 and not U-235 or Th-232 and then it decayed, and God had to do it, and there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SO WE SHOULD STOP LOOKING.' The worst part is the THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SO WE SHOULD STOP LOOKING. We should *never* stop looking for a better way to explain what we know, a better model, a better whatever. Saying what Gentry has said is just... bad.

Metherion

 

[samaus12345]

I'm saying that other elements and other isotopes of uranium have their own decay chains. These other decay chains contain polonium. Therefore, these other decay chains SHOULD make halos. But they don't.

Mate you just re-inforced Gentrys hypothesis.

Ur238 half life ~4.5 billion years.
Ur235 half life ~700 million years.

Hypothesis-Ur235 decay chain doesnt have polonium halos BECAUSE IT HASNT BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO DECAY OFF.

That link didnt work, was it from a peer reviewed journal. If it is, it is r e t a r d e d. It cant possibly be..... That guys moving the problem up one radioisotope....from Po218 (half life ~3mins) to Rn222 (half life ~4days) so it changes the necessity of it having to come into being (the rock and the radioisotope) from within ~30 mins (10 half lives) to within 10*4 days=40 days (of both the rock and radioisotope within that time from of each other). THERE IS ONLY 3 HALOS, not 4.

Hypothesis-in creation week Po218 was put into rocks instantly which empirically falsifies deep time, which then falsifies big bang. It still stands.

Also theres no law that says decay chains MUST start from the very top, other than evolutionists tacit assumption and the need for people to believe they do, hence so deep time can be seen to have somewhat evidence.

 

[metherion]

Mate you just re-inforced Gentrys hypothesis.

Ur238 half life ~4.5 billion years.
Ur235 half life ~700 million years.

Hypothesis-Ur235 decay chain doesnt have polonium halos BECAUSE IT HASNT BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO DECAY OFF.

Not quite. Remember that a billion equals 1000 million. So U-238 is 4500 million while U-235 is 700 million. Thus, U-235 has the shorter half life. A shorter half life means it decays faster. So the U-235 should have halos because it would decay faster than the same amount of U-238. If the 235 hasn't been around long enough to decay off, no way has the 238 been around long enough to decay off.

That link didnt work, was it from a peer reviewed journal. If it is, it is r e t a r d e d. It cant possibly be..... That guys moving the problem up one radioisotope....from Po218 (half life ~3mins) to Rn222 (half life ~4days) so it changes the necessity of it having to come into being (the rock and the radioisotope) from within ~30 mins (10 half lives) to within 10*4 days=40 days (of both the rock and radioisotope within that time from of each other). THERE IS ONLY 3 HALOS, not 4.

It isn't that the radon AND the polonium are causing the halos, it is that the radon INSTEAD OF the polonium is causing the halos.

Hypothesis-in creation week Po218 was put into rocks instantly which empirically falsifies deep time, which then falsifies big bang. It still stands.

Nope. It actually kinda fails hard. There is no explanation of why it only did it for some polonium, no explanation how it supernaturally happened, no explanation why other isotopes weren't substituted, no explanation of why it had to be supernatural, no reason to think it had to be supernatural besides a desire to falsify something else, no complete refutation of all other 'deep time' evidence. That kind of thinking just doesn't work.

Also, empirical data comes from an observation or experiment, not a hypothesis. The observation is that halos are there. The hypothesis "God did it" itself doesn't empirically do ANYTHING- it isn't empirical. The only empirical anything is that 'halos exist'. The idea that only God could have possibly done any of it and there is no way any of it could be natural has been rather soundly refuted in several ways.

Also theres no law that says decay chains MUST start from the very top, other than evolutionists tacit assumption and the need for people to believe they do, hence so deep time can be seen to have somewhat evidence.

True story. Most decay chains can start higher with artifically made elements. However, the decay chains always go down the chain, and if the elements higher on the chain are still there, it is in no way unreasonable to assume it started at least at whatever elements are already there.

Metherion

 

[samaus12345]

Please explain Gentries findings re the halo's and what he proposes?

 

[metherion]

Sure. I will later. Sorry, I'm in my last semester in my master's degree, and right now I've just become a bit too busy to give a proper summary/response, and I don't want to half-(blank) the explanation you asked for.

Metherion