Radiation

[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?

Where do you get this idea that I am saying a linear and logarithmic plot do not change?

You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...

[Jason Thompson]

You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...

No, I did not. I said I plotted the data and converted it to logarithmic and then it matched the CraTer graph. I said nothing about what the linear graph looked like.

[timfinch]

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?

If you had two sheets of graph paper, one linear and one logarithmic and you were plotting by had 20 data points on each sheet and assuming the same data points were used on each sheet, would the curves be identical?

[Jason Thompson]

Tim, for the last time, no-one is saying the curves would be identical. No-one at all. Is your reading comprehension as bad as your mathematical comprehension?

[timfinch]

You said you plotted the raw data and then converted it to logarithmic and the curve did not change.  I read where you said that.  I think...

No, I did not. I said I plotted the data and converted it to logarithmic and then it matched the CraTer graph. I said nothing about what the linear graph looked like.

So the two curves were different?

[timfinch]

So why didn't you show both data sets?

[Jason Thompson]

Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.

[bknight]

You are making this more complex than it has to be.

No, we're facing the problem in its full complexity.  You're making it "simple" by skipping the parts you don't have answers for and pretending that they therefore don't matter.  A great way to get rid of fleas on a cat is to incinerate the cat.  It's a great solution unless you "complicate" it by stipulating that the cat has to be alive after the process.  In the real world you don't get to ignore the parts of the problem that don't fit your solution just because you really, really like your solution.  The problem of determining Apollo authenticity is more complicated than you're making it, and you come off sounding rude and arrogant when you belittle people who are looking at the whole problem while you remain focused on one narrow piece.

...

Jay I'm cutting out some of your responses for brevity's sake not to disagree with anything you posted.

I've said it more than once, I want Jay on my debating team.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you had two sheets of graph paper, one linear and one logarithmic and you were plotting by had 20 data points on each sheet and assuming the same data points were used on each sheet, would the curves be identical?

You really don't get it do you? If I have a point of data that has a value of 3, it still has a value of 3 against a log scale or linear scale. The analysis of the data is not about the shape of the graph, the data doesn't change  just becasue you changed the scaling.

If I have numbers that range from 0-10, I would use a linear scale.

If I have numbers that range from 0.000001-100000 (for example) I'd use a log scale so the smaller numbers would not be 'squashed' up at the lower end of the scale, and would play an equal and important part in the visual presentation of my data. The scale is a choose which depends on your data range, and with modern packages this can be quickly changed to produce the best visual representation.

... but as explained, graphs aren't analysis, they are visual representations that aid the reader with the textual aspect of the analysis. I've written a PhD and professional research science, and understand the difference appropriate representation of data through visual means, and writing analysis to support a graph.

Now, if you looks at your data, how often does the data falls below your arbitrary level? That's the real question.

[timfinch]

Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

[Jason Thompson]

Of course the linear and logarithmic curves were different. I didn't show any data sets and I didn't need to. I urged you to go and look for yourself.  The point was, and remains, the logartihmic curve generated in Excel matches the one on the CraTer website, showing that this is also a logartihmic curve. If you can't comprehend that then you really must just be trolling now.

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.

Yes. Plotting the data on a log scale is not converting the data, just changing how it is displayed. The numbers are the same whatever scale they are plotted on.

You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

I'm glad. So you now actually understand that the CraTer graph is a log scale? ANd that the numbers actually fall below 0.2mGy/day for large parts of it?

[Rob48]

So why didn't you show both data sets?

I have posted twice (and now three times) a comparison of Luke's logarithmic plot and the CRaTER logarithmic plot (which you claimed was not logarithmic). They are the same, because both are logarithmic. If one of them was linear, they would look nothing alike, would they?

Here is the third time:

[timfinch]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

[timfinch]

So why didn't you show both data sets?

I have posted twice (and now three times) a comparison of Luke's logarithmic plot and the CRaTER logarithmic plot (which you claimed was not logarithmic). They are the same, because both are logarithmic. If one of them was linear, they would look nothing alike, would they?

Here is the third time:

OK

[Luke Pemberton]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?