ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: AstroBrant on October 17, 2014, 04:56:59 AM
-
No sooner does Bob B have to explain to Blunder-boy that the 10-100 MeV info he found was simply not correct, Jarrah has found another gross error to exploit. In his thread on the NVIDIA YT video, he gave sjoeroever a link to this article in American Scientist.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/new-twists-in-earths-radiation-belts/1
Specifically, to this diagram from the last page of the article:
http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=As2NXOmgWSxPXisiwFCUdVdXsPclONgwZYCQikYmih8OHxRoXuX1Sw==
Notice the AE8MAX figures for earth.
11 MeV electron count of 1E7 per cm^2 per sec??? The interactive table on the Internet doesn't even allow inputs above 7 MeV, as you will just get a page of zeroes. The maximum flux for 7 Mev electrons that I found was 3, not 10 million!
I wrote a letter to the editors at Sigma Xi, who publish the magazine. This is in their current issue, so hopefully Wunder-Blunder will not have much chance to use it before I get a reply. I informed him of same.
I anticipate him posting this new information here just any time now.
-
Clearly a misprint. That should be 1 MeV, as shown in the Jupiter and Saturn diagrams.
(ETA) On second thought, I'm not entirely sure what energy is represented by that diagram, though I'm pretty certain it's not more than 1 MeV.
-
Clearly a misprint. That should be 1 MeV, as shown in the Jupiter and Saturn diagrams.
That's what I thought, too, so I checked the table. (I used 1.1). The flux figures for that are about 10 times those in the diagram. Still, that's a lot closer.
-
The following looks almost identical to the referenced diagram (http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=As2NXOmgWSxPXisiwFCUdVdXsPclONgwZYCQikYmih8OHxRoXuX1Sw==).
(http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/tr6.gif)
Note that the above is for >1 MeV electrons. It comes from the same page from which JW got his 10-100 MeV claim.
-
Bob,
Yes, using the AE8MAX table again, I input energy levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Adding those values for earth radii = 3.0, (which was the largest), I get a flux total of about 4.39E7. That seems consistent with the diagram. (As opposed to an error factor of 3 million!)
I noticed that the diagram shows the most intense region farther out, like 4 earth radii, but that's on the tail side. So I suppose those values are averaged out for all the way around the earth where the belts compress more and more toward the planet on the sun side.
No word yet from Sigma Xi. I really do expect them to address this.
My last couple of comments on the NVIDIA/JW thread plus my three re-posts seem to have killed the thread! No comments have been posted since I did them 12 hours ago.
-
Bob,
Yes, using the AE8MAX table again, I input energy levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Adding those values for earth radii = 3.0, (which was the largest), I get a flux total of about 4.39E7. That seems consistent with the diagram. (As opposed to an error factor of 3 million!)
You don't need to add up the values. When you input into AE8MAX an energy of 1, you get the flux for all electrons with energies >=1 MeV. This is the flux that is depicted in the diagram. By adding the fluxes together, you are just doubling up, tripling up, etc. on the higher energy electrons.
If you notice in the diagram there is a 106 contour line that runs through the dark red area. This line crosses the geomagnetic equator (0 on the vertical axis) at two points, approximately L = 3 and 6 earth radii. If we look up the AE8MAX flux for 1 MeV at those two points we get 1.079E+6 and 9.978E+5, which matches the contour line. (Note that B/Bo=1 for the geomagnetic equator.)
-
You don't need to add up the values. When you input into AE8MAX an energy of 1, you get the flux for all electrons with energies >=1 MeV. This is the flux that is depicted in the diagram. By adding the fluxes together, you are just doubling up, tripling up, etc. on the higher energy electrons.
Okay, thanks. I guess I should have read the directions better.
If you notice in the diagram there is a 106 contour line that runs through the dark red area. This line crosses the geomagnetic equator (0 on the vertical axis) at two points, approximately L = 3 and 6 earth radii. If we look up the AE8MAX flux for 1 MeV at those two points we get 1.079E+6 and 9.978E+5, which matches the contour line. (Note that B/Bo=1 for the geomagnetic equator.)
Thanks again. I'll check.
Still no word from Sigma Xi. I'll contact them again in a couple of days.
-
Okay, thanks. I guess I should have read the directions better.
There are some things about AE-8/AP-8 that are not particularly intuitive, particularly in regard to the coordinates. I started a thread about it last month:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=644.0
I summarized the main points in the following article; just scroll down to the part titled "AE-8/AP-8 Radiation Belt Models".
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Thanks again. I'll check.
Just to be clear, the contour line that I was talking about is in the diagram that I posted in Reply #3.
Still no word from Sigma Xi. I'll contact them again in a couple of days.
I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.
-
I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.
This is why we have peer review. No one's infallible. No one's immune from error.
-
I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.
This is why we have peer review. No one's infallible. No one's immune from error.
I concur, no one is immune from error. What I find distasteful is that Jarrah seizes upon the errors made during the Apollo project to accuse NASA of murdering Chaffee, White and Grissom, yet has spent most of his time whining when his numerous errors have been identified.
Jarrah will avoid all the main criticisms of his ridiculous computations as he makes hay out of these figures. I'm sure he will accuse us of trying to change the data now that he has finally 'proven' the hoax with his 'calculations.'
I'll remind him now about his error with the Vegas debacle and the 1.5 x 0.5 = 1.0 calculation. That was more than error as he managed to shoot himself and Percy in the foot, especially when he revealed the logical fallacy of his argument with ham-fisted attempts at a correction.
I'm sure he won't apply to the same grace that he demands when he's in error (which is all the time). Jarrah is soon quick to jump over anyone that he deems to apply double standards, but will apply any 'the dog ate my homework' excuse when he's made accountable for the denigration of 400 000+ people.
As a note, I wonder if he'll ask any of the authors of the articles he cites if they think Apollo was hoaxed. He will still not apply that acid test.
-
1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? :o
How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.
-
As a note, I wonder if he'll ask any of the authors of the articles he cites if they think Apollo was hoaxed. He will still not apply that acid test.
I know he has misrepresented my words and pasted his own interpretation to it. Of course he never bothered to ask me for a clarification. If I were to post a correction on YouTube he'd probably argue with me over the meaning of my own words.
-
1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? :o
How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.
I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed. My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video. Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.
-
1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? :o
How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.
I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed. My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video. Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.
Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again :D
-
Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again :D
An oldie but a goodie. ;)
-
Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again :D
An oldie but a goodie. ;)
Yepp, and most of the times good for a laugh or two ;)
-
Not only that, but 50% is the wrong figure for the moon...
-
I know he has misrepresented my words and pasted his own interpretation to it. Of course he never bothered to ask me for a clarification. If I were to post a correction on YouTube he'd probably argue with me over the meaning of my own words.
You're trying to be a scientist. He's trying to be a lawyer.
-
He's trying to be a lawyer.
And he's being a jackass.
-
Yes, in addition to his well-established incompetence and his lawyerly approach, he isn't a very emotionally balanced person. He's mostly been an angry jerk, which is why I don't often direct my attention his way.
-
He's mostly been an angry jerk, which is why I don't often direct my attention his way.
Which has been my stance up until now. As soon as this latest radiation argument has run its course, I'll hopefully get back to ignoring him.
-
Not only that, but 50% is the wrong figure for the moon...
But the theory had always been that the filmed was slowed down with the use of wires, they just got the percentage wrong.
Do you remember the shift of goal posts? Once the penny dropped that the new 67% film speed was further away from the physics than Percy's 50%, wires were brought into the equation to fix that problem. I recall you and I arguing with hoax proponents that Percy never said it was a 50% slow down with wires, he said it was a 50% slow down.
-
I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed. My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video. Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.
I knew I had it bookmarked somewhere...
-
I knew I had it bookmarked somewhere...
Thanks for the clip. It's well done and funny. :D
-
Bob,
I've just solved a mystery. The reason I couldn't see Jarrah's thread on the NVIDIA video, (YouTube), is because I blocked him a long time ago. I didn't block him on my Debunx channel, though. So I can see the thread that way, but since he had blocked that account, too, that means he can't see any of my comments.
Apparently sjoeroever and Jarrah can see each other's posts, so I asked him to pass on the information about the American Scientist diagram as well as briefly what you heard from Dr. Odenwald. There's no way to know if he's gotten that information until sjoeroever tells him and he responds.
If anyone here knows they can contact Jarrah, could you please pass the information on to him about both of these issues?
-
Bob,
I've just solved a mystery. The reason I couldn't see Jarrah's thread on the NVIDIA video, (YouTube), is because I blocked him a long time ago. I didn't block him on my Debunx channel, though. So I can see the thread that way, but since he had blocked that account, too, that means he can't see any of my comments.
Apparently sjoeroever and Jarrah can see each other's posts, so I asked him to pass on the information about the American Scientist diagram as well as briefly what you heard from Dr. Odenwald. There's no way to know if he's gotten that information until sjoeroever tells him and he responds.
If anyone here knows they can contact Jarrah, could you please pass the information on to him about both of these issues?
I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.
I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.
-
I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.
I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.
Thanks for the info. Are you sure you're not blocked on his channel? Since YT has changed its system, they no longer inform you if you're blocked. Has Jarrah replied to any of your comments recently?
-
(given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob)
What I found to be a hoot about Jarrah's claim of intellectual dishonesty was that it was patently dishonest. He claimed his source was a NASA site that specifically covers the MAARBLE project. The NASA site that he references in his video has absolutely nothing to do with the MAARBLE project, never mentions MAARBLE, and even predates it by about 12 years. It's true that the information is reproduced on the MAARBLE web site, but that's not the source Jarrah referenced (plus the MAARBLE site is obviously a secondary source).
-
If you want to talk about intellectual cowardice, it's people like Jarrah. I do an in depth review of his work, point out each specific error, explain why its wrong, and show how it should be correctly done. In response he just hand waves and calls my critiques are nonsense but can't point out a single error that I've made.
(ETA) Correction - He did try disprove my claim that 55 MeV electrons would pass through an astronaut's body, but he made a math error (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=626.msg23029#msg23029) and failed in that endeavor.
-
If you want to talk about intellectual cowardice, it's people like Jarrah. I do an in depth review of his work, point out each specific error, explain why its wrong, and show how it should be correctly done. In response he just hand waves and calls my critiques are nonsense but can't point out a single error that I've made.
A point that has been made multiple times Bob. When his errors are pointed out he simply ridicules with bare assertions that his critics' rebuttals are laughable, yet he fails to offer a single shred of evidence to the contrary. He still has to address his understanding of integral fluxes over an energy distribution, an aspect that Jay highlighted at the IMDb many years ago. That question remains unanswered, and until he addresses that question he cannot profess an expertise in this field. He simply takes worst case energies to prove his point. His double counting of energy shows he clearly lacks the most fundamental idea in physics, namely the conservation of energy. His use of the bremsstrahliung radiation is simply hideous. He hasn't the faintest idea how that equation should be applied, ergo, he does not understand the physics of particle interactions with matter. He really needs to look at the data to understand that he is using that equation out of context (for several reasons).
-
I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.
I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.
Thanks for the info. Are you sure you're not blocked on his channel? Since YT has changed its system, they no longer inform you if you're blocked. Has Jarrah replied to any of your comments recently?
I don't think he's blocked me. He tends to reply when he thinks he has a come-back, and ignore when he clearly doesn't. He has no come-back to his radiation debacle other than to hold his hands up and admit defeat, something which he can't do, because he's pinned NASAs entire reason for faking the mission on the Van Allen belts being impassable in an Apollo CM.
-
(given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob)
What I found to be a hoot about Jarrah's claim of intellectual dishonesty was that it was patently dishonest. He claimed his source was a NASA site that specifically covers the MAARBLE project. The NASA site that he references in his video has absolutely nothing to do with the MAARBLE project, never mentions MAARBLE, and even predates it by about 12 years. It's true that the information is reproduced on the MAARBLE web site, but that's not the source Jarrah referenced (plus the MAARBLE site is obviously a secondary source).
I pointed that fact out to him before his video reply went live. Whether he missed it, or saw it and chose to ignore it, is anyone's guess. Regardless, it's a done deal. The 10 - 100MeV claim is proven wrong, and his decision to use the flux density for lower energies at the average of 55 MeV simply compounded his error.
He doesn't know what he's doing, despite his empty boasts about acing a university assignment about Jupiter that used the same method. It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler. So if he plugged the right figures into the equations for Jupiter, he may well have got the right answer. As for trapped radiation around the Earth, we're back to the old adage...
GIGO! :D :D :D
-
It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler.
I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing. He's quite welcome to join this board and defend his method. I for one am waiting.
I understand that he is now claiming he aced an assignment on the Mars meteorite ALH84001 and is using this as a basis to claim expertise pertaining to planetary geology. Apparently you can't challenge him on his moon rock critique because he's studied ALH84001 and this qualifies him as an expert.
-
I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing.
Luke, have you reviewed my analysis? I'd certainly welcome your critique. Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
-
It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler.
I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing. He's quite welcome to join this board and defend his method. I for one am waiting.
I understand that he is now claiming he aced an assignment on the Mars meteorite ALH84001 and is using this as a basis to claim expertise pertaining to planetary geology. Apparently you can't challenge him on his moon rock critique because he's studied ALH84001 and this qualifies him as an expert.
I'll have to old up my hands on this one, I made the assumption that the method was right since he'd already been held to account for his division/multiplication error. My bad.
I think it's easier for most people to grasp the fact that with any equations, you need to be plugging the right numbers in. Since it's been clearly proven that the numbers he was using were WAY too high (by several orders of magnitude), pulling his method apart would almost a be pointless exercise, for the following reasons. Firstly, it would muddy the waters (I find it better to nail him on a particular issue to prevent the usual gish-gallop). Secondly, the Youtube comments section is nowhere near us robust or useful as a proper forum such as this. Thirdly, his target audience might be able to grasp that his figures are wrong, but are they really going to follow a complex argument about equations being incorrect? I'm not so sure.
-
Luke, have you reviewed my analysis? I'd certainly welcome your critique. Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
I read it a long time ago, and used it to double check my own understanding, I didn't spot anything to make me shudder. I often refer to your website and Clavius. Both sites have advanced my understanding. I'll read through your work again, but it might take me some time.
-
Luke, have you reviewed my analysis? I'd certainly welcome your critique. Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
I read it a long time ago, and used it to double check my own understanding, I didn't spot anything to make me shudder.
I only wrote it last month so you couldn't have read it long ago (unless you consider a few weeks a long time). Maybe you're thinking about the article were I computed Apollo 11's trajectory, which was written 5 years ago. The new article uses the trajectory data from that analysis and the AE-8/AP-8 models to compute the radiation dose that the astronauts would receive.
Many of the equations I'm using and the basic math is the same as what Jarrah used, so if he made some fundamental errors then I may be repeating them. Of course I think I avoid all his obvious blunders, such as using the wrong flux, using the wrong energy, double counting the bremsstrahlung, miscalculating the shielding, etc.
-
[I only wrote it last month so you couldn't have read it long ago (unless you consider a few weeks a long time).
I did indeed think you were referring to your older article, which I did read many years ago when researching the van Allen belts and Apollo. I was being a bit lazy and didn't follow the link you posted. I'll sit and read the new work as soon as I can, it looks edifying.
-
He doesn't know what he's doing, despite his empty boasts about acing a university assignment about Jupiter that used the same method. It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler. So if he plugged the right figures into the equations for Jupiter, he may well have got the right answer.
I too didn't see any egregious errors in his mathematical method. If we spoon fed him all the variables, I think he could up with a correct answer for the absorbed dose. If he's doing that part incorrectly, then I fear I may be as well because my method is essentially the same. Where Jarrah goes horribly wrong is when he actually has to think and figure things out. The guy is clueless.
-
It kind of links in: Professor Brian Cox (pop star turned physicist who is famously intolerant of Apollo Hoax nuts) visits NASA's vacuum chamber:
His remarks about the construction of the chamber at around 30 seconds are interesting :)
-
Jarrah's getting desperate.
He's clinging to the 10 - 100 MeV claim, hasn't even mentioned the retraction from Dr Odenwald. He also contacted MAARBLE, but didn't specifically ask about the 10-100 MeV values (he did copy the relevant section form their website) The questions he asked:-
"I assume by "volts" you mean "electron volts", am I right? And secondly, can you provide me with any papers with further information on these average electron energies?
The response clearly up the units and gave 6 references in answer to his question. None of them back up his claim. The highest readings I could find was for 3.5 - 16 MeV electrons, which existed for a few weeks during the period July 2000 - June 2001, with a maximum flux of 10^3 particles. The Van Allen Probes mission measures up to 20 MeV, and showed a flux density of practically zero for energies greater than 10 MeV.
Here are the references for anyone who's interested.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/new-twists-in-earths-radiation-belts/6
http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/20130412?pg=111#pg111
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v199/2012GM001368/2012GM001368.pdf
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Events/Meetings/HEPPA/pdf_files/Tutorials/Baker.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/main/index.html#.VD5PIWeSy1
http://www.rbsp-ect.lanl.gov/publications/Publications_Journals.php
I've responded on his comments page, but it's pretty obvious he's just giving us the runaround and doesn't care about using more accurate figures.
-
Jarrah is just going places where he doesn't belong. It's like watching Godzilla vs Bambi.
I must admit a certain level of entertainment in all of this...and a great deal of education.
-
Am I right in assuming that his asking for an 'average' electron energy here is totally inappropriate? Are the energy values normally distributed? If they aren't then he reveals an even deeper lack of understanding of even the most basic statistics.
-
Am I right in assuming that his asking for an 'average' electron energy here is totally inappropriate?
Yes. He's trying to take an average energy and then multiply it by a flux. His flawed method has been explained to him multiple times. Anyone conversant in this field will understand the idea of integral fluxes and energy distributions. He clearly does not have a fundamental knowledge of calculus, if he did he would have applied a summation over the energy distribution for each flux component. He's managed to prove himself incorrect in front of people with expertise, and this time it is an absolute howler.
I said it years ago, he does more damage to the hoax theory with his ham-fisted attempts at math and physics. He portrays a veneer of expertise and fails miserably at each attempt when playing the sage.
-
That's what I thought :)
I know absolutely nothing about particle physics and the discussion here is way over my head, but I did teach stats at undergraduate level once upon a time, so I do know that in order for an average to be of any use whatsoever the population of data from which a sample has been drawn needs to be normally distributed.
-
He clearly does not have a fundamental knowledge of calculus,
I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them. "Understanding the math" has two components. First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them. Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.
Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely. He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work. Now lots of people don't get math. But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.
...it is an absolute howler.
It was a howler the last time he didn't realize an integration was in order. A conscientious person would walk away from that experience thinking, "Gee, maybe I should take a calculus class." Jarrah walked away claiming everyone was out to get him.
I said it years ago, he does more damage to the hoax theory with his ham-fisted attempts at math and physics. He portrays a veneer of expertise and fails miserably at each attempt when playing the sage.
That's why he typically stays in the walled garden. He can pretend to be a great physicist, and no one around him knows any better.
-
The Blunder hasn't a clue what he's doing and he's too pigheaded to accept correction. The number of particles decreases dramatically with increasing energy. For example, I picked a random spot along the outbound trajectory of Apollo 11 - a distance of 3 earth radii, where the belts are about their most intense. At this location the distribution of electrons by energy range looks like this:
0.1 - 0.5 MeV = 82.8%
0.5 - 1 MeV = 11.9%
1 - 2 MeV = 4.7%
2 - 3 MeV = 0.5%
3 - 4 MeV = 0.1%
4+ MeV = <0.01%
Dividing the integral energy flux by the integral particle flux gives the real average energy. If we do this for all electrons >=0.1 MeV along the path of Apollo 11, we get an average of about 0.3 MeV. This low average is because the belts are dominated by low energy particles.
-
I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them. "Understanding the math" has two components. First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them. Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.
Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely. He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work. Now lots of people don't get math. But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.
Well said. I was trying to say something similar early but you did a better job of it.
-
At this location the distribution of electrons by energy range looks like this:
0.1 - 0.5 MeV = 82.8%
0.5 - 1 MeV = 11.9%
1 - 2 MeV = 4.7%
2 - 3 MeV = 0.5%
3 - 4 MeV = 0.1%
4+ MeV = <0.01%
Dividing the integral energy flux by the integral particle flux gives the real average energy. If we do this for all electrons >=0.1 MeV along the path of Apollo 11, we get an average of about 0.3 MeV. This low average is because the belts are dominated by low energy particles.
Hopefully this will highlight to Jarrah why his method is incorrect, and simply taking an average is hopelessly wrong.
Jarrah now has a problem in as much as he's relatively close to putting numbers into his model and arriving at a figure that will show him that the Apollo astronauts could indeed traverse the belts. In his usual pigheaded manner he's found some juicy looking data to make his point, but the data contains a typographic error. Had he cross referenced the literature to make sure the figures were correct, something any good scientist would do as matter of course, he would not be in this pickle.
I saw the MAARBLE website a long time ago, and immediately dismissed the numbers as wrong. I knew they were in error as electrons at 100 MeV have some very interesting properties indeed. Electrons at such energies have de Broglie wavelengths that are on the par with the diameter of atomic nuclei. If Jarrah had any understanding of physics he would immediately know that electron energies of such magnitude would be a ridiculous in context of the VABs.
The higher energy electrons in the VABs are accelerated by a mechanism known as whistler mode chorus waves. A large proportion of the research that I have read cites accelerations up to a few MeV, not the 100 MeV Jarrah claims. If he knew his material and had expertise in the VABs he would have known this too. Here is an article (http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/recent-news-on-earths-van-allen-radiation-belts/) on the phenomenon.
Interestingly the term 1 million volts is used, as with the MAARBLE website where volts were interchanged for MeV. It appears that this interchange of terms is used elsewhere. In the article I have linked 1 MeV is included in the parentheses.
In any case, Jarrah is now actually close to proving wrong the very thing he has believed for 10 years. This makes this latest fiasco even funnier than his usual offerings.
ETA: This article is well worth a read, and discusses how electrons are accelerated to higher energy.
http://www.fis.unical.it/files/fl161/9550journalclub.pdf
-
I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them. "Understanding the math" has two components. First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them. Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.
Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely. He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work. Now lots of people don't get math. But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.
Well said. I was trying to say something similar early but you did a better job of it.
Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in theese cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)
-
Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in these cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)
I did that in my review of Jarrah video, but I plotted it on a logarithmic scale so it lost it's effectiveness in illustrating the point you're making.
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/avgflux.gif)
If we simply plot number of electrons versus energy it looks like this:
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/VABelectrons.gif)
-
I did that in my review of Jarrah video, ...
I may have missed that.
If we simply plot number of electrons versus energy it looks like this:
Exactly what I was aiming at. Now even the mathematically challenged person can see intuitively, that the average is at most less than one and probably less as one half.
-
Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in these cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)
I did that in my review of Jarrah video, but I plotted it on a logarithmic scale so it lost it's effectiveness in illustrating the point you're making.
<snip>
Nice illustration with the graphics there Bob. I've been trying to figure out how to physically represent the difference between the correct approach to marrying up the flux and energy level, and Jarrah's. At first I though it was like this. Correct method in orange. Jarrah's method in red (he added up 10 MeV, 7 MeV, and 55 MeV electrons, with fluxes of up to 2 x 10^6.)
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/JW_Rad_1_zps870a6e90.jpg)
Or he may have done this.
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/JW_Rad_2_zpsfaee2ede.jpg)
But it's late, and I'm tired, and Homeland is about to start.
-
He did the former. You've show with your illustration what I tried to describe with an analogy. If you haven't read it, the analogy goes like this...
Let say we have a pile of coins that includes 100 pennies (1¢), 50 nickels (5¢), 20 dimes (10¢), 5 quarters (25¢), and 1 half-dollar (50¢). Each coin represents an electron, where the number of coins is analogous to particle flux and their denomination is analogous to energy. The amount of money is analogous to the energy flux (particle flux × energy), the total of which is
(100 × 0.01) + (50 × 0.05) + (20 × 0.10) + (5 × 0.25) + (1 × 0.50) = $7.25
The only electrons that are of interest to White are those that penetrate the shielding, which he believes are those >6.1 MeV. This is apparently why he focuses his upcoming discussion on 7 and 10 MeV electrons. Let's say these are represented by the quarters and half-dollar in our pile of coins (i.e. coins ≥25¢). The smaller coins represent the electrons that are blocked by the shielding. To compute the dose, he must know the energy flux of >6.1 MeV electrons, that is, the value of the quarters and half-dollar,
(5 × 0.25) + (1 × 0.50) = $1.75
The above is all that should matter to White. The problem it that White has no idea how many quarters and half-dollars there are—all he knows is that there's 176 coins in the pile (i.e. the ≥0.5 MeV electron flux). He doesn't have the data to do what he wants to do, or what he should do. He says he wants to calculate the value of the half-dollars (i.e. 10 MeV electrons), but instead of using the correct quantity of half-dollars (which he doesn't know) he inexplicably uses the number of coins ≥1¢,
176 × 0.50 = $88.00
He then does the same thing for the quarters,
176 × 0.25 = $44.00
He next decides to average these values,
(88.00 + 44.00) / 2 = $66.00
Not content with these bogus numbers, White now claims there are dollars in the pile and computes,
176 × 1.00 = $176.00
These computed values—$44.00, $66.00, $88.00 and $176.00—have nothing whatsoever to do with the number White should have actually computed—$1.75. In fact, White's numbers are completely fabricated nonsense that have nothing to do with anything. Although this is just an analogy, the logic behind White's real computations is exactly as demonstrated above.
(ETA) I see that you have indeed read the analogy because you commented on it in the other thread.
-
I'll address this without using quotes, as a number of comments have touched on the issue, that being the ability to understand math.
Some of you have stated that JW should be able to understand this or that. I'm not at all sure. I've never seen any indication of it. Notice the math Jarrah uses in his radiation video. His math will seem advanced to most of his followers because of the impressive looking units, scientific notation, and use of equations. But he really does nothing more sophisticated than adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.
His error of thinking he can average 10 and 100 MeV electrons without considering the relative flux values indicates his level of mathematical thinking. I can't be certain he even understands Bob's coin analogy.
It has been mentioned that graphs might help him to picture relationships. Again, I'm not so sure, especially if one of the scales has to be logarithmic in order to get all the data in the graph. Bob's "Average Number of Electrons" graph is one I think he might understand, though. It's a pretty revealing picture. Still, he might be puzzled as to why the graph after about 2.5 MeV seems to read zero.
-
I received an inquiry from the managing editor of American Scientist today. She said they had received a "strange call" from someone in Australia whose "name was indistinct," inquiring about the revised figure in the diagram. She asked me if I knew who it might have been. I told her I was certain it must have been Jarrah White, and then gave a brief description of who he was. She gave me no further information about the conversation.
I guess this now confirms that he has gotten the news.
(I also confessed that I am not a "Dr.") :'(
-
So he just took the middle of a range as his "average"?
-
I've been trying to figure out how to physically represent the difference between the correct approach to marrying up the flux and energy level...
Excellent depictions that complement Bob's coin analogy and graphs. I suggest that with Bob's coin analogy and HLAR's illustrations it would be good to hold the thread at this point. Both examples offer a beautiful insight into Jarrah's mathematical ineptitude, and to lose these contributions among more posts would be a shame. They provide a wonderful bookend to the discussion, and I'd like to preserve them for all to see.
-
I have just one more image to post. HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake. The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale. The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy. The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
-
I have just one more image to post.
Perfect, absolutely perfect. This really illustrates that he does not understand the maths required to make an integrated dose calculation. The fact that his maths shows the area bounded by a rectangle should hopefully raise alarm bells. After all these years of trying to get him to work out the problem he's finally had an attempt and shown he does not understand. I think we all owe you a beer Bob.
-
Nice one Bob, that graphic is very, er, graphic! Even if he'd stuck to 7 MeV, or 10 MeV, with the flux values he used, he'd have way over-estimated the total dose. Nope, he just threw 3 random, high values in there, assigned them gave them all the flux at 1 MeV, and added them all up. I'd hate for him to do a background radiation count in a similar fashion, I suspect we'd all have friend a long time ago.
On another extremely illuminating note, for someone who's trying to make hay from his "intellectual honesty", the blurb he wrote about his latest video says that the MAARBLE scientist "confirmed that the section on their site should indeed read: "10 to 100 million electron volts, on average". Notice the quotes.
he did no such thing, of course. Jarrah quoted the relevant section, then simply asked "I assume by 'volts' you mean 'electron volts'?"
To which the reply was "You are right by 'volts' we mean 'electron volts'"
I think Jarrah realises he's been found out over the radiation issue. Even though he must know he's wrong, I confidently predict that his next video will portray him as a plucky investigator who uncovered damning evidence of a massive NASA cover-up over the radiation values: further 'proof' that Apollo was faked. In subsequent videos in months and years to come, if ever the radiation issue crops up again, he will simply hand-wave it away with a casual reference to the FACT!!! that he already proved a massive cover-up at NASA over how high the radiation figures actually are. Dr Odenwald is "in on it", the MAARBLE scientists are "in on it".
I hope I'm wrong, and he admits his errors instead.
-
he did no such thing, of course.
That's a perfect example of Jarrah's "lawyerly" approach. He sneaks in his own interpretation alongside a legitimate statement and makes it sound like his quoted expert confirmed all of it.
I think Jarrah realises he's been found out over the radiation issue.
I doubt it. He'll play up the muddied waters to say he's "somehow" still right.
-
There's no way to know what's really going through his mind, of course, but it's hard not to wonder: does he really, honestly, truly still think he's in the right?
I guess it's still possible, if he's convinced himself that there's a vast conspiracy to falsify the published numbers.
-
I hope I'm wrong, and he admits his errors instead.
Doubt it, but I have seen enough in his radiation calculations to confirm what Jay unraveled at the IMDb. Simply for my own satisfaction it has confirmed what I already knew, Jarrah hasn't got a clue about radiation and how to apply math to solve complex problems.
I am sure he will keep up his story that radiation was prohibitive to Apollo, but now I care even less about his 'radiation science' than before. I'm satisfied that the Grandson of the Great Sensei and Nephew to Ralph cannot step beyond multiply, subtract, divide and addition. Without more advanced function he has no grounds to claim any sort of expertise. As they say in my part of the world, 'job's a guddun.'
-
It is interesting reading but confirms my impression and expectations.
He has a superb opportunity with which to prove his case in a well written, well researched article.
Obviously not going to happen as the events do not lend the facts for him to do this in his way where his work can be tested. At least in the main stream where serious people can point out the errors. All about control of his position.
-
I have just one more image to post. HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake. The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale. The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy. The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
Bravo, Bob B! And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required? Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...
-
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
Bravo, Bob B! And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required? Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...
Like this? You mean rubbing it in by quoting the figure again? ;D
-
I have just one more image to post. HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake. The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale. The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy. The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
It'd be rude not to.....
-
It's obvious that for some perverse reason, the blunder gets some sort of kick out of creating controversy about his inept findings. So much so, that he couldn't care less about accuracy, so long as his team of idiotic followers buy in to it. Since he clearly follows this thread. This next bit is for Jarrah:
If I have one 10p piece and one £1 piece. The average total is 55p.
If I have a thousand 10p pieces and one £1 piece, it isn't. It's just about 10.1.
You don't just fail basic maths here, I think you are either too dumb to care or you do it deliberately. It's not quite on a par with multiplying instead of dividing, then blaming your teacher, but it is pretty useless. I hope you realise that a degree involves not just spewing out what you learn, it involves a deep understanding that you appear to be woefully short of. NASA landed men on the Moon, I think you know this, but the quantum leap of integrity to actually admit you were wrong all those years and the resulting "humiliation" prohibits you from ever doing this. That is a shame.
-
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
Bravo, Bob B! And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required? Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...
Like this? You mean rubbing it in by quoting the figure again? ;D
Yes... yes, that's definitely the idea.. It's just a pity (snerk) that (chortle) Jarrah (snicker) isn't (smirk) reading any of this..
-
If I have one 10p piece and one £1 piece. The average total is 55p.
If I have a thousand 10p pieces and one £1 piece, it isn't. It's just about 10.1.
This might be of interest to non-mathematicians like myself and Jarrah White.
Maths was my worst subject at school, but checking in my head only, I instantly agreed with Mag40's first average of 55p.
1.1 ÷ 2 = .55
But I had to get out the calculator for the second line, and got a very different answer. My 0.1008991 versus "just about 10.1."
So I wondered if 10.1. indicated a ratio or something else I was ignorant of, so I next had to check how many new p in a new £, because when New Zealand converted to decimal currency on 10 July 1967, £1NZ became NZ$2 and 10 shillings became $1. I remember it well because I took my girlfriend to lunch that day and we were both amused at the new "play money" we had. Many of the $ c. coins and notes were smaller than £ s. d. coins and notes.
Mag40's first line tells me there's 100 p in a new £, so I could do the sum as if I'm using New Zealand currency. So why the difference?
The buttons I pressed on the calculator were:
1000 x .1 + 1 ÷ 1001 =
and it answered: 0.1008991
Now, apparently there's the way el-cheapo calculators work and there's also that BEDMAS stuff and proper algebraic notation (IIRC) to consider, and if I put the above sum into my spreadsheet and my scientific calculator, they both give an answer of 100.000999. So that produces another complication -- now there are three very different answers.
Breaking down my sum, it becomes:
1000 x .1 = 100 (1000 10p coins = £100)
100 + 1 = 101 (£100 + £1 = £101)
101 ÷ 1001 = 0.1008991 (£101 ÷ 1001 coins = £0.1008991)
If you're reading this, Jarrah, what answer(s) do you get?
10.1 or
0.1008991 or
100.000999 or
something else?
Real mathematicians will probably be laughing at what I missed, but I think I've figured it out now, and that Mag40 should have put a p in the second line. But maybe that's not how such sums are written in the UK.
By the way, I can still add small columns of £ s. d. (pounds, shillings and pence) in my head, but my late father would be horrified at how slow and how inaccurate I occasionally am.
On the other side of the coin, last weekend I bought a $3.30 ice cream at my local shop, and a kid of about age 12 to 14 was serving, so I said I'd only pay him if he could tell me how much change he had to give me from $4. He had no idea and had to ask the owner, whose eyebrows shot up! Teenagers in NZ nowadays can't do sums that I could do when I was about 7 or 8 -- they instead rely on electronic devices and batteries never going flat and electricity never being cut off, which often happens where I live, rurally.
Our very last power disruption was a weird, unusual one where the current or wattage somehow diminished but stayed running. Lights dimmed considerably, but refrigerators and TV sets wouldn't function. I switched everything off in case appliances got damaged and lit a candle. Eventually the power was cut off for about 30 minutes when repairmen must have found the fault, then it was switched back on and was normal. But I wonder what caused that fault, which I've never experienced before. It was a windy night with light showers, so maybe a wet tree branch touch power lines and drained some of the current.
-
Teenagers in NZ nowadays can't do sums that I could do when I was about 7 or 8 -- they instead rely on electronic devices and batteries never going flat and electricity never being cut off, which often happens where I live, rurally.
I once tried to explain to a teenager how to multiply by ten, namely add a zero to the end. I gave up after 15 minutes.
[mischief mode] Don't forget the Figure, hopefully we can house train this puppy dog by rubbing his nose in it some more. [/mischief mode]
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/JW_Eflux.gif)
-
This might be of interest to non-mathematicians like myself and Jarrah White.
Maths was my worst subject at school, but checking in my head only, I instantly agreed with Mag40's first average of 55p.
1.1 ÷ 2 = .55
But I had to get out the calculator for the second line, and got a very different answer. My 0.1008991 versus "just about 10.1."
Kiwi. The average of a group of positive numbers cannot be less than the value of the lowest number in the group. Its doesn't matter whether you have 100, 1000 or a million 10p coins to go with the £1 coin, the average of that group can never reach down to 10p, let alone to a value below it.
What you have almost certainly done is forgotten to x100 at the end
So, your 0.1008991 should be 10.08991 which is, "just about 10.1"
ETA: Confirmed
1000 x 10p coins = 10,000p
1 x £1 coin = 100p
TOTAL = 10100p
number of coins = 1001
so 10100 ÷ 1001 = 10.089910089
-
What you have almost certainly done is forgotten to x100 at the end
Shush! You've given the game away.
But you're right, of course. Mag40 was talking in or "p" or new pence, and I was talking in new pounds.
The object of the game was to show my workings and write a rambling, partly idiotic post (like some HBs write), that has irrelevancies like the price of ice cream, teens' inability to add or subtract, and a story about a "mysterious" but real power cut.
I sort of hoped that Wunder Blunder might check my sums in his 'puter and find that the 100.000999 figure is indeed "correct", so then he would publicly slam Mag40 for criticising him in post 68 (even though the criticism was unusually moderate and polite for this forum) and perhaps say that Mag40 is obviously just another nutty Apollo-Believer who can't even do a simple sum and get it right, therefore his criticism is unfounded and irrelevant. (Which logical fallacy would that be? Straw Man? That's another subject I know too little about, so please help.)
And if the Wunder did that, Mag40 and the rest of us would have something more to laugh at, besides a graph with heaps of red and so little blue that it's hard for old eyes to see it. ;D
To blatantly steal from another good AB brain in the southwest Pacific:
Oh, I swear, (snerk) the Devil (chortle) made me (snicker) do it!(smirk)
-
Our very last power disruption was a weird, unusual one where the current or wattage somehow diminished but stayed running. Lights dimmed considerably, but refrigerators and TV sets wouldn't function.
This sounds like a primary phase failure. I remember being puzzled the first time I encountered one, but it made perfect sense once I learned what had happened.
Electric power systems almost always use 3-phase AC; that's why power lines almost always come in groups of three. Most residential users (except in Europe) get only a single phase, and the transformer that supplies them can be wired in one of two ways: between a primary conductor and neutral (wye), or between two primary conductors (delta). The latter is standard in California; I don't know about NZ.
If, with delta wiring, a tree takes out one of the three primary conductors, then customers on transformers wired across the remaining two phases won't know that anything has happened. But the 2/3 of customers on transformers connected to the affected phase will have their supplies connected in series across the remaining good phase. The voltage that each sees depends on the relative loading of the two groups; if they're equal, they'll see half the normal supply voltage. If one presents a much heavier load than the other, the lighter group will see nearly normal voltage and the heavy group will see very little.
The power probably cut out completely when the utility crews arrived and cut off the remaining two phases so they could repair the broken one.
-
One of my tenants called me over to demonstrate something. She turned on the electric stove and the hall light came on. Multiphase wiring can do funny things sometimes.
-
That sounds like a loose neutral, which is potentially very dangerous because it can apply higher-than-normal voltages to certain loads. I'd have it checked right away.
The classic sign of a loose neutral is when lights brighten when certain other loads are switched on.
I discovered one of these in a cousin's apartment. He was deaf, so he didn't notice what I did: a slight sizzling sound from his circuit breaker panel. This was a fairly large apartment complex, where standard practice is to supply 120/208V 3-phase to the building and take two phases to each unit. The neutral has to be brought through as well, and it is never grounded except at the entrance to the building or at the secondary of a transformer. The neutral connection had worked loose in his panel, and that's what I was hearing. This put the two 120V circuits in series across 208V, so depending on the relative loads in each phase one circuit could see much more than 120V. This fried a number of his electronic devices. I think he got his landlord to reimburse him.
-
This was many years ago and has been fixed. It was indeed tree abrasion of the lines out near the pole. Two electricians couldn't figure it out, and it was finally the utility company who diagnosed it, found it, and fixed it.
-
This was many years ago and has been fixed. It was indeed tree abrasion of the lines out near the pole. Two electricians couldn't figure it out, and it was finally the utility company who diagnosed it, found it, and fixed it.
Probably an abraded or broken neutral line in the secondary (120/240V) circuit. Standard practice in North America is for the utility to ground that line at several poles, and also in the service entrance box to each customer, typically with a strap to a metallic water pipe and/or ground stake (but not a natural gas line). This provides some redundancy in case a few grounds get loose, but usually there's no easy way to know when that's happened until they all fail and somebody notices weird stuff happening.
-
Speaking of power grounding practices, I got interested in the investigation of the Boeing 787 battery fires. When the NTSB released its preliminary findings of fact (sans commentary) I immediately saw evidence of some very large battery ground fault currents flowing through unfused paths. I can't say for sure that these currents directly caused the fire, but they certainly didn't help matters.
I wrote comments to the NTSB pointing out that these fault currents would not have had a complete path had the negative side of the DC power system not been grounded to the battery box and equipment frames. I suggested that it might be time to re-evaluate this apparently standard aviation practice, especially in aircraft with nonconductive structures, but I have heard and seen nothing in response. You wouldn't happen to have any contacts in that agency, would you? I would just like to know that someone gave it some consideration before deciding not to do anything.
-
Oh dear Adrian (AwE130)has today announced to the world about radiation levels in the VAB's his post comes out of thin air as a statement. But guess as to whose material he has tried to plagiarise. Would love to see Adrians workings lol.
For many years people all over the world are not believing in the Apollo moon landings anymore. In this article we will give you 5000 reasons why the official Apollo moon landing story is a hoax. Information about the inner and outer van Allen radiation belts in the early sixties is reveling the truth.
The energies of the protons in the inner zone do not exceed 100 magavolts and the energies of the electrons in the outer zone are less than 100 kilovolts. On the other hand the number of particles is enormous. In the inner zone the flux of protons is about 2 x 10 to the 4/cm squared/second and the flux of the electrons in the outer zone is something like 10 to the 11 electrons/cm squared/second. These numbers have to be compared with the flux of cosmic ray particles from space - about two protons and heavy nuclei/cm squared/second, representing the extent of the radiation to be anticipated in these regions. It is the quantity rather than the energy which gives the radiation zones this special importance and, indeed, danger to living organisms. In terms of common radiation dosage, cosmic rays represent about 0.01 roentgen/hour, compared with the permissible human dosage of 0.3 roentgen/week. In the heart of the outer radiation zone, the dose is about 10 roentgen/hour - 5000 times greater than a human being could stand. The origin of the particles in these radiation zones is not yet finally resolved. The inner zone of protons is stable and constant. This zone seems to contain the same kind of energetic particles and about the same quantity whenever it has been investigated. In contrast with the stability of the inner zone, the outer zone of electrons is extremely unstable and is influenced in some detail by events on the sun. Solar flares and magnetic storms appear to have a controlling influence on this zone of electrons.
NASA wants you to believe that the van Allen radiation belts are not dangerous when you pass them quickly. Apollo astronauts must be man of steal or should we say lead? It is time you join the whisper in a journey towards the truth for all mankind.
This can be found on his .com site, but only go there if you have good internet security I've had one bad experience there. Not withstanding the fact that Apollo didn't go through the 'heart' of either the inner or the outer VAB's
-
The energies of the protons in the inner zone do not exceed 100 megvolts and the energies of the electrons in the outer zone are less than 100 kilovolts.
So between Jarrah and Adrian, they cannot arrive at a consistent story for the energy of the protons and electrons. Way to go from the 'two giants' of the hoax theory. You would have thought they would speak to each other to make sure their 'press releases' are the same.
The irony of this is their claim that NASA have kept a hoax secret for 45 years, yet within 1 month they have introduced the most glaring anomaly into their version of events. Thanks for making me laugh, the both of you.
-
I don't think they even CAN talk about this amongst their own - it would be an admission to themselves that they don't know what they are talking about.
-
@Bryan,
Did Adrian give a source for his data? I wonder why he used "roentgens."
I mean, where in the world did he get stuff like this?: "In the heart of the outer radiation zone, the dose is about 10 roentgen/hour"
-
@Bryan,
Did Adrian give a source for his data? I wonder why he used "roentgens."
I mean, where in the world did he get stuff like this?: "In the heart of the outer radiation zone, the dose is about 10 roentgen/hour"
If you look on his website, a guy called Dave (cough! :) well it seemed as good a name as any) has been asking that very question. But after 20 or more times of asking, he has come up with, "Well where is your Data!" "Can we agree that the data is correct!" and "It comes from Explorer Geiger counter and James Van Allen!"
He has declared this as a nail in the coffin for Apollo, but when it is pointed out no Apollo craft ever entered this region, he goes back to, "Can we agree that the data is correct!" He is clueless!
-
@Bryan,
Did Adrian give a source for his data? I wonder why he used "roentgens."
I mean, where in the world did he get stuff like this?: "In the heart of the outer radiation zone, the dose is about 10 roentgen/hour"
Dr. Van Allen's used roentgen/hour in some of his early articles (c.1959-61), so Awe130 may have gotten it from one of those, though possibly second hand. From what I read, Dr. Van Allen's dose rates were computed for the "heart" of the belts, which I assume to be near the geomagnetic equator, and for shielding having a density thickness of only 1 g/cm2. Neither is applicable to Apollo.
-
I wasn't even aware of the definition of the roentgen until a while ago. I was much more familiar with the rad/rem and their SI counterparts gray/sievert, which are all defined as deposited energy per unit mass (times a dimensionless quality factor for rem and sievert). I didn't know that the roentgen is defined completely differently, and that it wasn't just an older term for rad or rem. So I have to be careful not to mix the two in the older literature that uses the roentgen.
-
Roentgens? That's like measuring fuel flow in hogsheads per fortnight. (All due deference to you folks in the U.K., but "fortnight" to us in the U.S. seems appropriately archaic.) And yeah, that probably means he's following the Blunder's lead and relying on stuff from the late 1950s.
In all fairness even fair-minded, intelligent people have trouble with the notions of flux and energy, of the Van Allen belts as exhibit widely different measurements of these values based on your location and the solar weather, and of integrated dose as being highly dependent on one's path through three-dimensional space. Several times I've been asked for "general" figures for "How much radiation is there in the Van Allen belts?" and I do my best to decline to answer, knowing that whatever qualifications I try to apply to an answer will be omitted. "Jay says there are blah-blah rads..." probably still pops up from time to time.
But that's no excuse for Adrian's consistent and hopeless inability to understand that he is conceptually wrong on nearly every count, on nearly every question he looks at. He can't be made to understand that he doesn't understand. He desperately wants a concession on "the data are correct" without being willing to consider that that the data are inapplicable to the problem at hand. To him, "Can we agree that the data are correct?" is indistinguishable from questions of applicability. To him, "correct" includes "applicable," and it's a massive paradigm shift for him to believe that those may be two separate concepts.
It's really no different than his misunderstanding of the Saturn V issue. Once he gets it in his head that "Jay admits the plans were lost," there is no prying him loose from his simplistic understanding of how aerospace designs really are documented. In his mind any concession, no matter how carefully qualified or explained, validates his simplistic misunderstandings.
-
To him, "Can we agree that the data are correct?" is indistinguishable from questions of applicability. To him, "correct" includes "applicable," and it's a massive paradigm shift for him to believe that those may be two separate concepts.
It's really no different than his misunderstanding of the Saturn V issue. Once he gets it in his head that "Jay admits the plans were lost," there is no prying him loose from his simplistic understanding of how aerospace designs really are documented. In his mind any concession, no matter how carefully qualified or explained, validates his simplistic misunderstandings.
Absolutely Jay, even today he come out with...
You seem very eager to start yelling Apollo was real, but it seems you atnleast agree with this AwE130 website article. 5000 times a human can stand in the heart of the outer radiation belts. When you agree to those number present you will see that Apollo was a hoax. None of you are able to "debunk" those numbers. Hahaha This whisper stuff is really fun, the Pro Apollo side is exposed LOL.
Even though I had not agreed with him in the slightest and told him so.
You seem very eager to say I agree with the Data, when all my posts expose the data as irrelevant and of doubtful origin. Is there something wrong with your reasoning that makes you do this.
But it is all really, so much water off a ducks back.
-
"Heart" of the "outer" radiation belts. Ignorance is such an amusing thing to behold.
So I wonder why the world's entire astrophysics community hasn't latched onto this "obvious" discrepancy and declared Apollo to be a fraud.
-
Roentgens? That's like measuring fuel flow in hogsheads per fortnight. (All due deference to you folks in the U.K., but "fortnight" to us in the U.S. seems appropriately archaic.) And yeah, that probably means he's following the Blunder's lead and relying on stuff from the late 1950s.
Ha! I was trying to think of an archaic analogy, like doing eye surgery in fractions of a furlong, but I like yours better.
To him, "Can we agree that the data are correct?" is indistinguishable from questions of applicability. To him, "correct" includes "applicable," and it's a massive paradigm shift for him to believe that those may be two separate concepts.
It's really no different than his misunderstanding of the Saturn V issue. Once he gets it in his head that "Jay admits the plans were lost," there is no prying him loose from his simplistic understanding of how aerospace designs really are documented. In his mind any concession, no matter how carefully qualified or explained, validates his simplistic misunderstandings.
You've given an example and so has BPR. Here's mine: for over a year Adrian kept spamming me with, "Then you agree that NASA has altered photos." I repeatedly told him I was on to his game and I wasn't going to play it, because I knew he would completely ignore any qualifications I would make, and then he would go off bragging that "Apollo defender agrees that NASA altered the photographic record." Despite the number of times I told him I wasn't going to fall for his deceptive trick, he kept trying it. I likened it to a mother whose son is hiding behind the sofa:
Mom: Billy, I know you're behind the sofa.
<silence>
Mom: Billy, you can come out from behind the sofa now.
<silence>
Mom: Billy, I can see your feet. The game is over. Come out from behind the sofa.
<silence>
Mom: BILLY! That's enough! Get out from behind the sofa! NOW!
Billy: I'm not behind the sofa.
-
Roentgens? That's like measuring fuel flow in hogsheads per fortnight. (All due deference to you folks in the U.K., but "fortnight" to us in the U.S. seems appropriately archaic.) And yeah, that probably means he's following the Blunder's lead and relying on stuff from the late 1950s.
I would say it is from this article in time magazine from 1958
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863443-1,00.html
This article is also mentioned in the comments in Jarrah's last video with this quote
The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.
It is rather incredible how one could extract something like Adrian's text from the above quote, but I guess you have to be a believer to understand that.
-
A good spot Miss Vocal, I wonder what tangent his next Gish Gallop will take? :)
-
A good spot Miss Vocal, I wonder what tangent his next Gish Gallop will take? :)
He did mention in one of his repetitive comments the numbers were coming from van Allen himself.
My guess is he is going to try this radiation dose for a couple of times and then most likely will find some other quote which will be removed from any context.
Or he might google what 'aperture' really does...
I still wonder why he is so silent about his great discovery which should have exposed the Apollo missions. :)
-
He did mention in one of his repetitive comments the numbers were coming from van Allen himself.
I have another quote from Van Allen himself. It says the radiation hoax argument is nonsense.
-
I have another quote from Van Allen himself. It says the radiation hoax argument is nonsense.
Right, but just look at the quote from which he cherry picked, it starts with
The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space...
to conclude with
The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes.
Adrian's blind spot has been able to complete ignore these and filter out only the "weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens" it seems like. Oh boy the diopter of the glasses he must wear
-
AwE130 Adrian gets told off by his father..
(http://i60.tinypic.com/x1acr9.jpg)
-
Adrian's blind spot has been able to complete ignore these and filter out only the "weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens" it seems like. Oh boy the diopter of the glasses he must wear
Sometimes I think it would be interesting to install something like a counter for all those HBs, who are citing from articles or papers, although these papers do support Apollo. I've seen it so many times from people like Turbonium, Heiwa, Cosmored and several others.
-
I found all the quotes Adrian plagiarized while refusing repeated requests for the source. They were written by none other than Sir Bernard Lovell, in his book, The Exploration of Outer Space, pp 64 & 65, published in 1960.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1960Obs....80...64L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES
I will post this information on Adrian's web page, his Infowars entry, and anywhere else I find it. I am now interested if Lovell's claim about the level of cosmic ray radiation was ever specifically refuted or retracted.
-
Can hardly wait to see his response AB, I believe he knows he is on a loser he is on another GG on infowars.
He claims that AS15-82-11140 and AS15-82-11141 show a set of disappearing footprints. It took me exactly 2 seconds to spot where they had gone. AS15-82-11141 is a close up and the original footprints in AS15-82-11140 are out of frame. But additionally the journal carries a full explaination, that the footprints were kicked over, you can even see that some of the larger rocks have moved in between frames.
-
AwE130 Adrian gets told off by his father..
(http://i60.tinypic.com/x1acr9.jpg)
I think that would make a great picture for the Thematic Apperception Test. I'd tell the psychiatrist, "The man is saying, 'Son, I'm sorry, but we just can't keep all the kittens.'"
The shrink is thinking, "Okay, this guy is pretty normal."
Then I'd be tempted to say, "So, Jeffrey, you're going to have to decide which one to keep as a sex slave and which seven we chop up for dinner."
But I digress...
I saw Adrian's hot new discovery just minutes before seeing your post. I also noticed, right at the very end of his video clip, that Dave (?) was taking a hop forward, probably for 11141. We don't get to see the end of it, though. Do you think he cut it out on purpose?
Naahh. He's not that smart.
-
Well one of his main pieces of stupid is claiming that the footage he has is 16mm, when it was live TV.
I've taken lots of screenshots of that TV footage and identified the rocks in them in LRO images. You can see features in the rille behind them that are also seen in the 16mm ascent footage, LRO and more importantly Chandrayaan shots of the area.
Every single aspect of the Apollo evidence holds together. Adrian's garbage can't even hold his own water.
-
Flipping eck, casually wandered down the pipe that led to that collection of ramblings on youtube and he has one up for the Virgin Galactic crash, commenting as if he knows anything and is to be taken seriously.
Just why?
-
Flipping eck, casually wandered down the pipe that led to that collection of ramblings on youtube and he has one up for the Virgin Galactic crash, commenting as if he knows anything and is to be taken seriously.
Was that 'faked' too? Or was the pilot 'murdered' because he was about to expose the project?
-
Flipping eck, casually wandered down the pipe that led to that collection of ramblings on youtube and he has one up for the Virgin Galactic crash, commenting as if he knows anything and is to be taken seriously.
Was that 'faked' too? Or was the pilot 'murdered' because he was about to expose the project?
Sounds like he is doing a technical critique. At least the words are in that order, not sure he knows the subject though.....
Edit. Looks like he just got up as well, wonder if he gets alerts to news stories in this vein so he can comment online quickly to get hits on his counter.
-
Ah, I did not read the rest of the text accompanying the video. NASA are evil apparently and some accusations appear to be made.
-
Ah, I did not read the rest of the text accompanying the video. NASA are evil apparently and some accusations appear to be made.
That's right - they are the only people who ever do anything space related, and all amateur telescopes are vetted by them to make sure that only NASA approved stars ever seen through them.
-
Did not really want to copy what is there (was if it is edited and this is read in the future).
To quote his own words. Last paragraph on the descriptor for the video.
Being a government agency, NASA has been able to get away with negligence, murder and recklessness that would have led to them being shut down permanently if they were a private organization. For the record, I do not believe that Mark Alsbury was murdered. But if he died because warnings were ignored, it could lead to Virgin Galactic being shut down. In the past there have been many commercial airliners that have been shutdown because of repeated safety violations, I don't want to see any private space company suffer the same fate. This video is now an open plea to Virgin Galactic that they do not try to follow in NASA's dark footsteps.
And I made the mistake the other day of fast forwarding some bits as the ramblings scrambled my attention, apologies. Some serious claims on NASA I think.
-
Blimey. These loons really do see "reds under the bed" all the time, don't they?
Weirdos.
-
Blimey. These loons really do see "reds under the bed" all the time, don't they?
Weirdos.
He is now claiming his website is under attack.... :D :D :D
This happens every time he thinks he has some revealing information. I'm sure he takes it down himself, to try and gain that air of a persecuted truth seeker. :D
In reality it is so manufactured it makes him look even more of a buffoon!! :D
-
Under attack? OK, there will be those in the interweb who do this for no reason other than "because". Personally I would rather see his web site unmolested, it is the shop front he presents to the world. People can see the stupid on show before entering.
-
Nobody ever just has an accident do they ::)
It seems highly likely that the only warning that was ignored in the Virgin Galactic incident was the sign that said "Don't pull this lever".