Radiation

[timfinch]

You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.

Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.

Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.

And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?

I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

[JayUtah]

No you are not close at all.  I need no impetus to make remarks.  They just happen.

I didn't say you were looking for an impetus.  I said you were looking for a justification.  I have no doubt you'll keep making categorical ad hominem remarks.  Your efforts to socially engineer your way past the debate -- which certainly have not gone unnoticed -- would fare better if you could rely on something stronger than assumption for their basis.  You wouldn't be the first to try to use belief in conspiracy theories as a proxy for open-mindedness.  You have no problem accusing everyone here of having a closed mind.  You've already done it several times.  But those accusations would work better for you for avoiding real debate if you could point to data supplied by other people that seemed to support them.

I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place.  I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement.  It is highly efficient.

Yeah, that would be the categorical ad hominem arguments I mentioned.  It's disappointing that you think that's how adults should manage a discussion.

No, I won't be answering your question.  You'll have to continue assuming without evidence that everyone is ideologically set against you, rather than their just pointing out that you're factually wrong.

[nomuse]

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.

Could we do it in...hrm, what's a non-standard unit for ionizing radiation? Oh, of course. BED's per, um, Luau.  If you can come up with a standard duration for a luau.

[timfinch]

No you are not close at all.  I need no impetus to make remarks.  They just happen.

I didn't say you were looking for an impetus.  I said you were looking for a justification.  I have no doubt you'll keep making categorical ad hominem remarks.  Your efforts to socially engineer your way past the debate -- which certainly have not gone unnoticed -- would fare better if you could rely on something stronger than assumption for their basis.  You wouldn't be the first to try to use belief in conspiracy theories as a proxy for open-mindedness.  You have no problem accusing everyone here of having a closed mind.  You've already done it several times.  But those accusations would work better for you for avoiding real debate if you could point to data supplied by other people that seemed to support them.

I am one of those kind of people that likes to put everything in its place.  I place people into categories and deal with them according to their placement.  It is highly efficient.

Yeah, that would be the categorical ad hominem arguments I mentioned.  It's disappointing that you think that's how adults should manage a discussion.

No, I won't be answering your question.  You'll have to continue assuming without evidence that everyone is ideologically set against you, rather than their just pointing out that you're factually wrong.

Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing to watch...

[Luke Pemberton]

I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

If you want to investigate the monomial relationship, yes, you'd do that. But we aren't doing that are we? We're plotting the raw data straight on to a graph. I thought we had established that point.

If you think you have data that is of the form y = ax^b you take a log of your y and x data, which gives you

log y = log ax^b

log y = log a + b log x

You can then determine a and b from the equation of a straight line if you the log of your data on a linear scale.

[nomuse]

So why didn't you show both data sets?

What the flying...!

There's one data set. It doesn't matter if you graph it linearly, by some power law, or as a bluidy pie chart!

I say again, graphs are useful to visualize data. That means grasp at underlying patterns. How you graph it doesn't change the data set (not if you did it right...!)

[timfinch]

if you could support your position with say, a dictionary definition then I am prone to change my position.

The entirety of mathematics and my 20 years of professional experience supports my position. Have you ever noticed when you plot the graphs in Excel that whether you include the minor gridlines or not the scale remains the same? Even your own examples actually support what I and everyone else has been saying, with the powers of 10 being equidistant in every single example. The CraTer graph ONLY calls out those powers on 10 on the y-axis. The fact that it leaves out the minor graduations of values like 2,3,4 etc doesn't alter the scaling. So either they have plotted their graph with no modifications to the data using a standard mathematical graphical presentation, or they have done some conversion that they have not described (because if the numbers had been changed the y-axis labelling would have to reflect that or else the graph is fraudulent) to make it fit your version of what you think that graph is. For some reason you are unable tp grasp the idea of standard methodology when it comes to presentation of data.

Now if you could provide other exmaples of any kind of graph following the pattern you talk about I might be more prone to discssing this further, but I suspect this is just your lack of mathematical skill at work. Still no comment about your failure to recongise the standard practice that mGy per hour = mGy/hr = mGyhr^-1 either I see....

Why would you call a scale logarithmic if there are no logarithms used in the scale?  That doesn't make logical sense does it?

[timfinch]

So why didn't you show both data sets?

What the flying...!

There's one data set. It doesn't matter if you graph it linearly, by some power law, or as a bluidy pie chart!

I say again, graphs are useful to visualize data. That means grasp at underlying patterns. How you graph it doesn't change the data set (not if you did it right...!)

The graph on the CraTer web site was self explanatory but for some strange reason you had to download the data convert it and rechart it.  Logic is weak in this one.

[Luke Pemberton]

Could we do it in...hrm, what's a non-standard unit for ionizing radiation? Oh, of course. BED's per, um, Luau.  If you can come up with a standard duration for a luau.

How about nano-gherkins per jiffy on a log base number of Twinkies in a bag versus a non-linear bound Hermitian function scale / Alistair Cook's batting average graph?

What do you think the blue data will do? Fall below the line or be above the line?

[nomuse]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

We?

I hope you are talking about you and the weasel in your vest pocket, because the forum members understand log graphs. Any that didn't have a hard science (or statistics, or...honestly, it isn't like they are uncommon!) background going in, got brought up to speed by the excellent educators here some years ago.

I for one am not willing to move on. You didn't understand the representation of the data set and you refused to work with the data itself, insisting that your interpretation of the graph was correct and everyone else was, somehow, missing it.

You want to present this as a learning experience? Be my guest. By showing you are capable of learning.

[JayUtah]

It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

No, this is not just another way in which you are superior to your critics.  I also come from the slide-rule and graph-paper world.  Yes, if you have graph paper with a linear scale only, you have to first compute the logarithm of the data and then plot that on the linear scale.  That's because the equally-spaced gradations on the linear graph paper correspond to degrees of magnitude when those degrees are expressed as logarithms.  Back when I drafted graphs on actual vellum using india ink and a forceps ruling pen, I had no problem understanding this.  That's why I have no problem looking at a logarithmic scale and seeing those evenly spaced major gradations as orders of magnitude in the data, as whole numbers in the logarithms, and as the proper place for data to live.

[nomuse]

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

I said this about 10³ pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

Sure that isn't 10,000? Because you know you are supposed to add the ten to the other three. Because ^n is always to the power of ten, right? 

Sorry. I'm going to step away here while I try to clear a persistent odor of sock from my nose.

[JayUtah]

Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing to watch...

And look at you trying to shame me into giving you those answers.  Hardly casual interest, then.  You might just have to carry on with this debate without a rational basis for pigeonholing and dismissing your critics.

[Jason Thompson]

I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

That is not answering my question. How do you tell the difference bwtween the two types of scale you are discussing when the only numbers on the axis are the powers of 10?

You can also tell me what the difference is between plotting the raw data on a log scale and taking the logs of the data and plotting on a inear scale.

And you haven't provided any evidence for any kind of 'exponential' scale that works the way you described.

[timfinch]

It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

No, this is not just another way in which you are superior to your critics.  I also come from the slide-rule and graph-paper world.  Yes, if you have graph paper with a linear scale only, you have to first compute the logarithm of the data and then plot that on the linear scale.  That's because the equally-spaced gradations on the linear graph paper correspond to degrees of magnitude when those degrees are expressed as logarithms.  Back when I drafted graphs on actual vellum using india ink and a forceps ruling pen, I had no problem understanding this.  That's why I have no problem looking at a logarithmic scale and seeing those evenly spaced major gradations as orders of magnitude in the data, as whole numbers in the logarithms, and as the proper place for data to live.

We have something in common.  We are both old.  The difference is I am a war hero and you are not.