ok… well this is how I see the theory.
Within all crystalin structures there is a pattern to the formation. When radiation (and sometimes other sources) are introduced to developing crystals damage occurs to the pattern that is forming, which shows up to the human eye (in most cases) as ‘halos’ of discoloration within the matrix.
Gentry believes that he has discovered evidence which proves that hard substances like mica and granite have been found which have halos caused by Polonium radiation. Polonium material, having a half life of under a second, is gone quickly (changing to the next material in the periodical table). It also only occured at the dawn of time itself, during the “big bang” according to conventional science.
There’s more too it than that, but it’s a layman’s explination… I’m no physicist.
Apparently Gentry has a masters in physics, so he’s certainly in a better possition than I to judge such things, but I have been reading the words of scientists with Ph.D’s and they have quite a different story to tell.
major flaws in Gentry’s so called theory.
Gentry has failed to produce an experiment which may be duplicated by peers, who are not chosen by him, which in turn, fail to produce a negative effect. This above anything else is the most ■■■■■■■ part. A believe CANNOT be a theory unless it adhires to this basic principal.
If we are to assume that Gentry is correct, it would preclude that 200 years of geological, and physics experimentation must be re-examined and conciquently changed. That means that all the other theories that other scientists have come up with, which have already failed to produce a negative result, have to have another explination to their effect. Gentry has failed to give ANY explination for these other theories or how they may work. Personaly I don’t think that this is his job, but given the sheer amount of experiments that have already been done, SOME sort of explination should be forth coming from his group. Since it’s been over two decades since Gentry came up with this theory, there has been plenty of time to do that.
For instance. In order for this theory to work we have to assume that the half life of all radioactive substances has changed over the last 8000 years. Not only changed, but all have changed differently from each other. There is no precident for this in any example or experiment EVER. Not only that but the premise itself seems to contradict what Gentry says. If the halflives of these substances have changed, it would have required some amount of time. The result of having a planet with uranium at it’s supposed higher halflife state, as Gentry has stated it was, would have “left this planet a molten ball of magma well into the future”.
The second problem with this theory is that other substances DO produce the same halo as the polonium as far as the best none electron microscopes can detect. This of course is not a problem for a scientist who has access to a very serious peice of equipment, however Gentry specificaly tells his followers that ANYONE can pick up mica and see the halos, and conciquently do the experiments for themselves. This is a lie, and Gentry KNOWS that it is. No one will be able to do the experiments accurately because they cannot see the halos for what they are. However to the naked eye the halos match his experiments exactly.
The last problem some see is that Granite, takes thousands of years to develope. ANY amount of polonium material within the substances creating the granite, would long change to some other material before the granite was ever formed. Hence the halos would look different.
This leads to the age old debate between creationists and evolutionists. (even though this subject has NOTHING to do with evolution. I mention this because I don’t want anyone confusing what I’m talking about here.) Creationists almost always distribute their material to laymen. They’ve been pushing that line to the common man for hundreds of years. When you target a group for information, and the purposefuly lie to them as Gentry HAS to be doing, it’s both unethical and immoral. It’s called disinformation. Scientists may very well be pricks when it comes to process, but that’s what science is, exact process, defined by the following.
- think of a thought
- develope a postulate
- create an experiment which may produce a “false” in response to the postulate.
- experiment without a false reply.
- give the experiment to peers, who are not chosen by the developer of the postulate, who in turn also do not recieve a “false” response to it.
Something is a theory ONLY when the above is adhired to.
What is obvious to me Phil, after reading BOTH sides of the debate is that Gentry has a predefined model of the Universe which he then attempts to find proofs for, ignoring all other evidence before him. That’s piss poor science. Hell it’s not even science… it’s called propeganda. Gentry is a liar, and a fraud Phil. I would suggest starting to look for your evidence in other areas. In addition I would suggest that you take a lesson from Gentry and not be like him. Science does not ignore evidence for the sake of a conclusion, it bases that conclusion off of the evidence provided.
