Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

Dear Moderator, It seems many of my questions go unanswered.  I am not complaining but I wanted to point it out in case I was accused of such a dastardly act and was banned once again.

If you feel that is the case then make a list, but I'm going out for 2 hours now, so don't expect me to reply immediately.

[Abaddon]

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.

Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity.  Start with this question.  Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?  Do we pick one or sum them or average them  Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.

I am unsure that I can sufficiently dumb it down.

[Luke Pemberton]

You are taking a set of measurements performed by averaging of the dosimeter tags sewn to the flightsuit (I assume...that's the most likely place to be looking at total flight dose taken in situ) of astronauts inside a spacecraft passing through multiple potential ionizing sources of wildly fluctuating magnitude, and comparing them against an off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope attempt to sum up the data from a completely different set of instruments using nothing but arithmetic averaging, with no attempt to even define the range of variation.

And even when you start throwing in random multipliers you are still getting answers that are closer to NASA's than the error range of either method. I'd say every bit of work you are doing validates NASA's data (or, to be more honestly, fails to demonstrate anything).

Tim - This from nomuse. It sums it up and what I said about using scientific research to make claims against the real dosimeters.

[nomuse]

I got code that needs to work before tonight's rehearsal so will only be looking in sporadically (honestly, I shouldn't be here at all today...)

[Jason Thompson]

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.

If it represents one hour why is it in cGy/day? It is quite simply the estimated daily dose rate based on the radiation detected in that hour. This is not complex, but you insist on making it so.

if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

Take an average, of course. Why would I do anything other than that?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[timfinch]

I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.

That's not what said or implied. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the CRaTER data, lots of them. We are saying that the dose from GCR would be lower in Cycle 20 owning to the increased activity of that cycle.

It draws nicely on the notion that SPEs are discrete events that does not mean that space is a region of searing radiation. That much I owe you, I'll be fair on that point. It shows quite clearly that once discrete events are removed, the GCR background is quite survivable on a short mission. Some HB's would cite astronauts receiving hundreds of rem.

The issue with the CRaTER data is that you won't accept that it refutes your initial premise of <0.22 for all the reasons discussed. So it's really up to you. Your initial claim was fallacious. So in some ways it is off the table, but in others it remains. It serves as a useful exercise in the merit of using scientific data to present a case for the hoax. Namely that there is no merit, you'll always have an apples and oranges comparison with the actual dosimeters.

I find  a reason to respect you for that concession and I reiterate, in an attempt to use only relevant Apollo era data I relied on NASA own belief that GCR radiation existed in a range of .24 mgy/day to 6.0 mgy/day.  I don't make these numbers up.  I am merely repeating what they said.  It really doesn't matter in proving the hoax because GCR radiation is a bit player in the game of total radiation received.

[gillianren]

Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.

The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field.  Every single one, all over the world.  Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about.  Which, yes, means answering all questions.  And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.

Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works.  The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked.  What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about.  You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.

And as for Cosmoquest?  Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it.  Duh.

[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?

[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?

[timfinch]

Tim, I don't think you understand how this works.

The reality of Apollo has been proven to the satisfaction of all the world's experts in every relevant field.  Every single one, all over the world.  Therefore, when you are making claims counter to that, it is your obligation to show that you know what you're talking about.  Which, yes, means answering all questions.  And not necessarily having your own answered, because we are doing you the favour of assuming you're smart enough to figure things out on your own.

Further, let me explain a little about how "reasonable doubt" works.  The fact is, it is not reasonable to believe that your belief that a single thing doesn't work somehow proves that literally everything else was faked.  What is considerably more reasonable is that you don't know what you're talking about.  You have yet to explain why you believe that isn't the reasonable explanation.

And as for Cosmoquest?  Yeah, you were in violation of a whole bunch of rules there.  Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you set the rules for it.  Duh.

Contraire mon ami.  If I prove your car has never had an engine then do I subsequently need to prove that you did not drive your car across country?  You say But I arrived across country therefore it is proof that I did.  Really?  Is it?  As far as you doing me favors,  well perspective is everything.  I feel I am doing you all favors by haring a perspective that does not exist in the singularity of thought within the group.  I feel you guys should create a go fund me account to compensate me for the effort.  What do I know?

[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?

[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.

[timfinch]

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.

If it represents one hour why is it in cGy/day? It is quite simply the estimated daily dose rate based on the radiation detected in that hour. This is not complex, but you insist on making it so.

if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

Take an average, of course. Why would I do anything other than that?

I missed this one.

I am good with averaging the doses over a day angraphing out the resultan asand actual depictions of daily cislunar radiation.  There is that caveat about silicon correction that has yhet to be resolved but why are we playing with hamburger when the steak on the VAB table is awaiting dissection?

[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?