Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

ANd yu have failed to plot the linear one with the same range as the log one. Why? Your log graph goes from 0.01 to 1. Plot the linear one with the same range.

Try this.  In excel plot the raw data.  Right click on the vertical  axis and select format axis.  Click in the Logarithmic scale box and then compare the two data sets.

How many times do I have to tell you, I have done this? This is exactly what I and others have been advising you to do. The curve on the logarithmic axis exactly matches the curve shown on the CraTer graph. Nothing is changing about the numbers, only the scale on which they are plotted, and they STILL show a substantial section less than your arbitrary minimum.

[timfinch]

I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?  No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?

[Luke Pemberton]

I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?  No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

[timfinch]

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

[Jason Thompson]

I have noticed that no one wants to embrace the fact that NASA claims a cislunar GCR background range of .24 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, let me say this veyr clearly. 0.24mGy/day is an AVERAGE. It is not a range minimum. How many times do you need to be told this?

Is it that we believe that all 9 lunar missions fell through the gaps on this and managed to transit the VAB, lunar surface and cislunar space on a beautiful and quiet space week?

All 9 did not. If you average the daily doses across all missions it comes out substantially higher. Again, why do you need to have this pointed out again? Only ONE mission returned a daily dose rate lower than the average GCR dose rate. This is what we expect when we use averaged data.

[bknight]

the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.

He was discussing the same nonsense only to be handed his head, but he was smart enough to duck out before he violated their rules.

[JayUtah]

No one finds this even remotely curious?  Just me?

Your claim has been thoroughly examined.  It has no merit, because you fail at simple data analysis.  There's no use trying to call people sheeple after they've already spent nearly 70 pages trying to correct your mistakes.

[Jason Thompson]

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.

[timfinch]

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

[JayUtah]

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

You don't know how to read the graph.  It's as simple as that.  These are tools that Luke, Jason, and I work with on a daily basis.  It's obviously new to you, but you're not helping your case by pretending you're the expert and blustering your way around facts.

[Jason Thompson]

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

No response to the repeated requests to acknowledge that the numbers disagree with you then?

[JayUtah]

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.

[timfinch]

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.

I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't.  I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question,  Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

[Jason Thompson]

Have we finally got to the bottom of this?

Tim, do you think that because changing the scale of a graph changes the appearance of the graph, different conclusions can be drawn from the data depending on how we draw the graph scale? Are conclusions sensitive to our choose of scaling? Is this what you think?

No, I don't.  I simply don't think the concept of a logarithmic graph has been fully grasped and this is a way to reach the unbelieving.

Tim, I will say again, plottting the data on an Excel graph and telling it to use a logarithmic y-axis is exactly what I did in the first place and exactly what I advised you to do, and it produces exactly the same curve a the very first one you showed from the CraTer website.

I printed out the graphs as proof it doesn't.  I don't understand how it works differently for me than it does you but I am forced to ask the question,  Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

Where do you get this idea that I am saying a linear and logarithmic plot do not change? I have said quite clearly that when the data are plotted on a logarithmic y-axis the resultant curve looks like the one on the CraTer website, because that is also a logarithmic plot.

[Luke Pemberton]

Why is it reasonable in your mind that a plot of raw data does not change between a linear plot and a logarithmic plot?  Why does that make sense to you?

If I have a data point 10 on a linear scale, what does it corresponds to on the y scale when read off the graph?

If I have a data point 10 on a log scale, what does it correspond to on the y scale when read off the graph?