Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

I cannot actually understand how anyone thinks that changing a scale means the data is transformed. If you plot a log graph and an arithmetic graph of the same data, the shape of the graph changes, but the data remains the same when read against the scale.

[timfinch]

Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.

What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data

Lie.

and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Lie.

This is not a difficult concept to embrace.

Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.

And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.

I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.

[bknight]

What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...

No it's not. The numbers match the position on the log scale exactly. I can put the log divisions in and the graph is not changed.

But thank you for being exactly as predictable as expected. Asked me to plot in Excel on a log scale to prove you right, did it, proved you wrong, so you conclude Excel is doing something with the numbers that it absolutely is not.

into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Really? See the attached graph where I've put in the log scale minor divisions too.

For me I prefer the divisions on the graph as it helps visually to determine the approximate values.  I can see the values much lower than .2 approaching .1.  As Luke and you, perhaps others you need to interrogate the data to find the absolute low.  But for the discussion at hand the value for a good portion of the graph are below the printed average for A11, which is to be expected

[Jason Thompson]

use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.

[timfinch]

Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

[Jason Thompson]

Good lord, tim, even your own graphs clearly show the same data points without any chang or conversion whatsoever. Notice how your first example has a point at 10 that sits exactly on the line at 10 in both cases? Nothing has been changed except the scale on the axis.

[Jason Thompson]

Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

This is not semantics, it is your inability to comprehend a graph. It is actually critical.

But again, evasion of simple quetion noted.

[Luke Pemberton]

Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

The issue is that you have now posted evidence that you think because the scaling changes and so does the shape of the graph, it means the data changes. That's what you think. You actually think this.

[timfinch]

RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.

I cannot argue this.  It is correct.  The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along.  It is merely a point of perspective.  if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged.  This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.

[Jason Thompson]

RIght, let's do this again. Tim, look at the two graphs. Same data points, different scales. Arithmetic scale on the left, perfect straight line. Log scale on the right. Exactly the same numbers. The only difference is where the numbers lie on the axis. Look at the actual points and you can clearly see that in both cases y=x. The curve changes because of the different scales. That is all. No change to the numbers has been made, only how they are plotted.

If you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, or claim I have done some other weird conversion to the data, you are either incompetent or trolling.

I cannot argue this.  It is correct.  The shape of the curves differ as I have contended all along.  It is merely a point of perspective.  if you keep an arithmetic scale then the data itself must be converted to log or if you have a log scale then the data is unchanged.  This is not obvious to you but if you added the tick marks to your graph it would be painfully obvious.

No, that is not what you said. You said that if the curve changes shape when you plot on a log scale the data must be converted. Those are your exact words:

plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

[Abaddon]

I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Really? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Now plot that. On anything. With meaning.

You failed to define your axes, without which you have nothing. That you failed to do so tells everyone that you are simply flailing about in a sea of abject ignorance and you like it.

[Jason Thompson]

You also contend that when I changed the scale of the axis on the CraTer data it must have converted the data to plot it. You have yet to explain why that would happen in that case but not in the simple example I posted.

[Abaddon]

Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.

What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data

Lie.

and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Lie.

This is not a difficult concept to embrace.

Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.

And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.

I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.

Right. You don't know at all. Thank you for admitting that you have no clue.

[Abaddon]

Is this the Apollo Hoax site or the Math Hoax site.  Why are we not discussing the improbability of the lunar landing and instead wrangling over semantics?

Because you chose to raise the issue and thus exposed yourself to deserved derision when you doubled down on your nonsense.

Even a child could understand that.

[Abaddon]

I cannot actually understand how anyone thinks that changing a scale means the data is transformed. If you plot a log graph and an arithmetic graph of the same data, the shape of the graph changes, but the data remains the same when read against the scale.

Nor I.

The options are limited. Troll or moron.