Thanks for getting back to me, and sorry about taking so long to reply. Funny, I was just reading your paper again yesterday and saw where you explained it. But I am still having trouble understanding what the B/B0 input values will do and how big λ will be, either in degrees or Earth radii. (I am barely smart enough to figure out that B/B0 = 1 means on the geomagnetic equator, or the densest portions of the belts.)
I find the L and B/Bo coordinates to be rather bizarre. They make sense given the context but there is nothing very intuitive about them. What they do is define a location within Earth's magnetic field. Here is an image we can use for reference:
https://www.patana.ac.th/secondary/science/anrophysics/ntopic6/images/magnetic_field_earth.jpgEach blue line represents a magnetic field line. A particular magnetic field line can be identified by the L coordinate, i.e. its radial distance from the center of Earth measured in the geomagnetic plane. Once we've chosen a particular magnetic field line, we can move along that magnetic field line by either looping around toward the north magnetic pole or looping around toward the south magnetic pole. As we move away from the magnetic equator, the strength of the magnetic field line weakens. We can there define our location along the magnetic field line by comparing the strength of the line at the location to the strength of the line at the equator. This is expressed as the ratio B/Bo, where B is the strength at our particular location and Bo is the strength at the equator.
For example, let's say our coordinates are L = 2 and B/Bo = 0.5. To find our position we first move 2 Earth radii out from the center of Earth at the geomagnetic equator. We then select the magnetic field line located at the position. We now move along that particular field line until its strength is reduced to 1/2 what it was as the equator. We are now at the location defined by the coordinates L = 2 and B/Bo = 0.5.
The polar coordinates R and λ are much easier to understand. R and λ are derived from the trajectory of the spacecraft. The relationship between R, λ and L, B/Bo are defined in my web page. If the position of the spacecraft is known in polar coordinates, its position L, B/Bo coordinates can be easily found using the equations.
Also, thanks for the link to that other thread. It leaves me with the question, has anyone ever contacted CCMC and asked them to just post a damn primer on how to use this database and how to make coordinate conversions?
That would certainly be helpful. I think it took me a couple of days to dig up the answer, and I'm not sure I would have understood it without the help of people here.
As long as I'm here, though, I might as well ask you about something else which has come up again. I give the links you your articles on radiation and blast craters frequently.
I'm not entirely happy with the blast crater article. I went way overboard with it. It should have been just a simple back of the envelope calculation and I made it way more complicated than it needed to be. I don't mind getting complicated when I'm computing something that has a definite answer, such as the trajectory of Apollo 11, but the blast crater computation is just a ballpark solution. I've been meaning to rewrite it and strip it down to just the bare essentials.
A couple of times people have raised the issue of your credentials.
My credentials are irrelevant if I'm correct. They need to challenge me on the merits of what I've written, not on what my credentials are.
I find your papers very enlightening, thorough, and solidly based in math and physics
Thank you.
Have you ever considered having some solidly established PhD aerospace engineers or physicists publicly evaluate and endorse your work?
I usually ask the people at this forum to review my work. We have physics PhDs and aerospace engineers among our regulars. Other than that, I haven't considered it. Not because I wouldn't value having my work reviewed and endorsed by others, but because I don't want to bother anybody with it. The people here are happy to volunteer their time, but I feel uncomfortable asking someone who doesn't share my interest to spend any of their valuable professional time on this hoax stuff.
I'm particularly interested in this kind of peer review on your topics of rocket propulsion, radiation, and craters. Or, perish the thought, have you ever considered submitting them for peer review to a respected journal?
I don't think anything I've done is original. It might be original in the context of debunking the moon hoax theory, but clearly the things I've written about have already been extensively studied and written about by professionals. In the big picture, my work isn't all that important.
