Radiation

[nomuse]

Graphs are great for visualizing data. But if you are making a numeric analysis and you have the original data...you use the original data.

Squinting at the pretty picture is for amateurs.

[bknight]

Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.

Stop playing games. You know damn well that is not true. You have been asked repeatedly why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the data, in simple black and white, contradicts your claim that the GCR rate is never lower than 0.22uGy/day. It's there, and you can see it and plot the graph that you insisted shows it is always above that value.

You refuse because you would have to admit that all that obfuscation is just your way of refusing to acknowledge your error.

ANd the relevance to cycle 20 has also been explained. Cycle 20 was a more active solar cycle, therefor the GCR flux would be even lower than in cycle 24, where it already falls below your stated minimum GCR levels.

Double thumbs up on that summation!!

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim, here you go. An exponential plot.

See, the data still falls below the line.

[JayUtah]

Why don't you apply and see if you have the right stuff?

You first.  The professional engineer's exam is 13 hours long.  The study guide is about five inches thick, 9 pt. text.  You've already admitted you have no qualifications or training in astrophysics, engineering, or any of the other sciences that relate to your claim.  You're arrogantly presuming to correct people who have not only had their expertise in these areas properly adjudicated, but have practiced those professions successfully, in some cases for decades.  You have a right to be proud of your service in the Navy.  You do not have the right to pretend others do not have the proper expertise.  You're being arrogant and rude.

[Luke Pemberton]

Sorry for this LO with the attachments. Delete if you wish.

Look Tim, scaled to Base 16 now. Lo and behold, the data falls below the line.

[Jason Thompson]

The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.

I am not talking about 'before and after' curves. I plotted the data on a log scale and it matches the graph on the CraTer website exactly. Because the graph on the CraTer website is on a log scale. This is the point. No other plotting produced exactly the same curve.

But again you ignore the point: the NUMBERS disagree with your claim. Why will you not address this?

[Luke Pemberton]

Last one LO, I promise...

Tim, look, scaled to base 0.5...

Guess what... you've got it. The data falls below the line. I scale the axis as I wish, but plot the original data without alteration and I always get the same result. The data falls below the line.

[Rob48]

Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 10² and 10³ lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Yes of course. Try plotting the values on a linear plot and you will see that the shape of the curve is nothing like this one!

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes of course. Try plotting the values on a linear plot and you will see that the shape of the curve is nothing like this one!

Like this, but then you can barely see the data that is central to Tim's hypothesis, hence scaling the ordinate as a log scale.

[Rob48]

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.

The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.

Yes they can be the same, because both graphs are logarithmic graphs. Look at them, compare them. Stick them in a graphics program and overlay them if you want!



10^-2 cGy/day on the left-hand graph is the same tick mark as 0.1 mGy/day on the right-hand graph. The next tick mark up is also the same: 10^-1 cGy/day = 1 mGy/day.

This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.

[Luke Pemberton]

This is incredibly basic maths, literally multiplying by 10. My six-year-old daughter can multiply by 10, without a pencil and paper.

OK, we can do the after graph in cGy day^-1. Same, the data falls below the line.

LO: I broke my promise.

[timfinch]

See if this makes a difference.

[Jason Thompson]

ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.

[Jason Thompson]

But sticking wth that little subset of data, what do you think you'd get if you calculated the average of the whole data set, the first half and the second half?

[timfinch]

ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.

Try this.  In excel plot the raw data.  Right click on the vertical  axis and select format axis.  Click in the Logarithmic scale box and then compare the two data sets.