Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

It is merely a thing of curiosity.  Is there harm in asking?

Yes, because one pertains to the shooting of children at a school, which some people may find quite sensitive.

[Luke Pemberton]

No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm.

I said 1, 10 and 100. Look at the double headed arrows. They show you that the distance from 1 --> 10 is the same as from 10 -->100.

Also 100 -->1000.

Read my post properly.

[Jason Thompson]

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....

[timfinch]

It is merely a thing of curiosity.

Then it won't matter if no one answers you.

Is there harm in asking?

All the other conspiracy theorists who come here and ask the same question have had one of a small number of ulterior motives in asking it.  So you tell me what harm you might intend by asking it.

My, my, we are defensive.  I am in the far corner of the country and I am old and harmless.  I am a threat to a beer bottle but that is the extent of it.  I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.  So tell me.  What conspiracy do you fancy?

[Jason Thompson]

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

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.

No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm. 

Oh for crying out loud, will you read? It is not the divisions between 1 and 10 that matter, it is the space between 1 and 10, which is equal to the space between 10 and 100, which is equal to the space between 100 and 1000, which is equal to the space between 0.00001 and 0.0001. That is what defines a log scale. How many different ways do we have to explain this to you?

It is precisely because all the numbers are spaced according to the logarithm that makes 1-10 the same as 1000-10000 or 0.01-0.1 on the axis

[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....

[Jason Thompson]

Putting up the same picture won't change the reality here, tim. It is the space between the 1 and 10, the 10 and 100, the 0.1 and 1 that defines the log scale. Even if you leave off all the other numbers between them.

Do you insist that a linear axis must include every number on it, or do you accept that if it goes up 0, 10, 20, 30 then all the other numbers between fit the same linear scale without actually having to be drawn in?

[timfinch]

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

See how the divisions between 1, 10 and 100 are equally spaced. That's called a log scale. The ones that are equally spaced - the major tick marks - increase by factors of 10.

Just because the minor marks are omitted, it does not mean you have a log linear scale - or whatever daft name you want to call it - it just means the minor tick marks are omitted for clarity.

It's linked to log of base 10 and use of exponents in standard form. I'm glad you've dropped the exponential aspect of this now. That much is a relief.

No, I don't see how the divisions between 1 and ten are evenly spaced.  They are spaced as a function of the logarithm. 

Oh for crying out loud, will you read? It is not the divisions between 1 and 10 that matter, it is the space between 1 and 10, which is equal to the space between 10 and 100, which is equal to the space between 100 and 1000, which is equal to the space between 0.00001 and 0.0001. That is what defines a log scale.

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.  the terms are not interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing.  If you are plotting on a logarithmic scale then you don't convert the data to a log.  Scaling accomplishes that.  if you are plotting to an exponential scale then you have to convert the data to a log first.

[JayUtah]

My, my, we are defensive.

How so?  I'm acting according to the learned wisdom that "innocent" questions of that type almost never turn out to be purely innocent.  You said your interest in the answer was only casual.  In that case it wouldn't matter if anyone answered it.  But now look at you pressing for answers.  Not quite so casual after all, then.

I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.

And I assume that's so you can continue to make spurious, categorical ad hominem arguments.  Am I close?  It's not like it's hard to find posts where you describe in what low regard you hold people here.  My guess is that you seem to be trying to find an empirical excuse to keep doing that, now that you appear to be out of actual arguments.  Justifying one's dismissal of the group as a whole is one of the small handful of historically attempted ulterior motives I mentioned.

[timfinch]

Putting up the same picture won't change the reality here, tim. It is the space between the 1 and 10, the 10 and 100, the 0.1 and 1 that defines the log scale. Even if you leave off all the other numbers between them.

Do you insist that a linear axis must include every number on it, or do you accept that if it goes up 0, 10, 20, 30 then all the other numbers between fit the same linear scale without actually having to be drawn in?

It is a technical point and I am a stickler for technicality.  It is a character flaw that I am working on.

[timfinch]

My, my, we are defensive.

How so?  I'm acting according to the learned wisdom that "innocent" questions of that type almost never turn out to be purely innocent.  You said your interest in the answer was only casual.  In that case it wouldn't matter if anyone answered it.  But now look at you pressing for answers.  Not quite so casual after all, then.

I am just trying to get a feel for the nature of the group.

And I assume that's so you can continue to make spurious, categorical ad hominem arguments.  Am I close?  It's not like it's hard to find posts where you describe in what low regard you hold people here.  My guess is that you seem to be trying to find an empirical excuse to keep doing that, now that you appear to be out of actual arguments.  Justifying one's dismissal of the group as a whole is one of the small handful of historically attempted ulterior motives I mentioned.

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

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[Luke Pemberton]

Here you go, previously asked at a physics forum, the difference between log and exponential scales.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/logarithmic-vs-exponential-scales.371771/

Note the one reply: never heard of it, and then pretty much attempted to explain it in the same way I explained it you, by scaling the major division according to base e.

In all my years as a physicist, and I have dealt with plenty of relationships based on natural logs, I've never heard of an exponential scale.  I've plotted the natural logs of data to determine monomial relationships; but never scaled a graph exponentially.

[jfb]

It sure is lonely up here in the stratified air of open mind mountains.  I could use a little company.  Bueller? Bueller?  Anyone?

Obvious troll is obvious.

Yeah, I've been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it's crystal clear that Tim isn't arguing in good faith, and never had any intention of doing so. 

It's a troll.  It's not interested in anything except getting people wound up.  I'm willing to bet real money it wasn't a nuc, either. 

But because I spent time on it, attached is yet another plot of the CRaTER data, scaled to powers of 10 (whether you want to call that logarithmic or exponential, I don't really care):

[Luke Pemberton]

Let's try one more time Tim.

Distance between 1 and 10 = distance between 10 and 100 = distance between 100 and 1000.

Read this bit slowly: Are the double headed arrows the same length?