Radiation

[timfinch]

Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?

Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?

Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.

So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal.  Pity, I am embarrassed for you.

[Abaddon]

Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.

[timfinch]

I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?

Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.

[Abaddon]

Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?

Why should there not be? 'Because I don't think there should be' is not an adequate answer. NASA is under no obligation to cnform to your expectations for how it presents data.

Obviously then interpreting the data requires some understanding of the fact that it is not a list of daily doses rather it is a list of discrete snapshots of multiple daily doses.  It makes a huge difference wouldn't you say?

Oh, so all of this is just your inexpert "intepretation" of the data. Fine. I claim that my "interpretation" of the data proves unicorns exist. Now what?

Let's leave the unicorns in your stable and stay on point.  How do you correctly interpret the CraTer Data to make it a meaningful depiction of daily dose?

Really? Prove that I do not have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. You cannot.

So you have nothing and have decided distraction is the only tool left in you arsenal.  Pity, I am embarrassed for you.

Nope just making clear that you have no clue. Can you disprove my IPU? Or can you not?

[Abaddon]

I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?

Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.

Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

[timfinch]

Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.

Will you stop already? This is serious business.  If you have nothing to contribute then spectate.  You are embarrassing yourself.

[JayUtah]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[timfinch]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll?  Does not the data validate the assertion.  Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming?  Is it time to drop the mic on this one?

[Abaddon]

Now prove that my invisible pink unicorn is not emitting your suspect particles.

Will you stop already? This is serious business.  If you have nothing to contribute then spectate.  You are embarrassing yourself.

Nope. There is an important point to be illustrate in this. You are incapable of disproving my IPU in my garage. Not only are you incapable, your are comically unaware why it matters.

[bknight]

I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..

No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.

[Abaddon]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Is everyone who disagrees with convention a troll? 

No, just you.

Does not the data validate the assertion.

No, we have already established that you might as well be looking up a trouser leg.

Have I not penetrated deep into the institutional programming?

No, we have established that you are unable to penetrate an intellectual bag. Institutional programming is amusingingly rubbish, only people who have no education and are somehow jealous of that education invent that baloney.

  Is it time to drop the mic on this one?

Perhaps you should.

[timfinch]

I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..

No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.

NASA considered two trajectories.  The first was a direct one straight through the heart of the VAB to the moon and the second one a translunar injection using a technique invented and proven by the Russians.  They determined the direct shot would actually receive the least radiation because the speed and time in the heart of the VAB would actually reduce overall exposure.  The Russian method spent more time in the VAB but was far more fuel efficient.  They opted for the the Russian method.  There is no secret safe passage.  Many pretend it is but they cannot document it.  Why would we send the Orion into the heart of the VAB if such a path had been discovered?

[Abaddon]

I calculated the VAB transit time at 4.5 hours based on the Apollo 11 logs.  You can use any transit time you can defend but it doesn't really matter.  Whatever time you use or whatever average background radiation you surmise the results will be magnitudes above apollo 11's dose.  There is no getting around the facts.  It can not have happened and therefore it didn't.  I have shown you that it was a magic trick now you need to figure out how they did all that impossible to fake video because the evidence of the hoax is before you..

No you have been shown that a shorter path was traveled.  No 4.5 hrs through the belts less than 2 hours. Again you fail to understand the trajectory.

Timfinch cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning. We established that already.

[timfinch]

Abaddon are you a government troll?  Is it your job  to act as a diversion, to distract the intelligent exchange of information and perspective?  What is your agenda here.  You are a negative component detracting from the overall good of friendly discourse.  Why the moderators remain silent is a source of interest to me.

[nomuse]

I'd fund a hoax believer that was worth the time. One that had interesting and well-worked out arguments and one whose arguments evolved during discussion.

This is not a non sequitur. You last post on log graphs, you mentioned the necessity of the minor divisions. I agree; they make the data easier to read. But here's a question; what if I look close at the graph and the data point I want to read falls between two of the minor divisions? How do you read that one? Say, if on the paper I am using, there is 1 cm between the minor division at "2" and the one at "3." A data point sits at .5 cm above the "2." What is that number?

Remember the it is logarithmic.  When dividing between minor graduation it is still logarithmic.  Halfway between marks is roughly a third.

Lie. There is no such requirement as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

Or to be precise, it depends on whether you listen to most of the world, or what Tim was arguing earlier in the thread.

The weasel is still there. The graph is log, top to bottom. It would be so if you had no index lines large, small, proportional or log spaced, red or blue or blinking.