Radiation

[timfinch]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

[Luke Pemberton]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

Are you still suggesting that when one plots data on a log scale, they need to take the log of the data? As Jason suggested, go away and compute the log of a number less than 1. Just do that. Find the log of 0.5. Then come tell us how to plot that on the CRaTER graph.

If you cannot perform this simple step to work through some logic, then you are an intellectual coward, and the record is here to see.

[gillianren]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

[Abaddon]

I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.

For the love of Gods, why does everyone assume English majors are all journalists?  Those are journalism majors.  I write nonfiction, for the most part, mostly about film--which is how I know what I've repeatedly told you about how faking the Apollo footage is literally impossible even today.

So let's do a little thought experiment, Tim.  Let's say that it is, as you've been told, impossible to fake the Apollo footage.  The only way to get it to look the way it does is in a place with 1/6 Earth gravity, in near-vacuum, with no ambient humidity.  So.  Knowing that the film is not possible to fake, why is the answer to the fact that you think the numbers don't make sense not "you don't understand what the numbers are telling us"?

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In my spare time, apart from being a professional, credentialed engineer for a living, I am also a stage magician as was my father before me. This is yet another area of knowledge of which you are utterly ignorant.

And knock it off with the random insults. It makes you look like an idiot. Don't do it.

[timfinch]

I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.  I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.  Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume the surface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.

[Abaddon]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.

[timfinch]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.

Just maybe therein lies my confusion...

[cos]

If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

Ah. I see what is wrong with your thought processes now. Also how someone can refuse to acknowledge their misunderstanding and instead wave away a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence. I'd like to thank my teachers for teaching me the scientific method, critical thinking and the skills to validate things myself. In an earlier thread some HB said that we still wouldn't believe it was a hoax if God himself told us. You know what, we would BUT only if he could tell us how it was done. Same standard for everyone.

[Abaddon]

I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.

Lie. 

I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.

Lie.

Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume thesurface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.

Teaching grandma to suck eggs. BTW, the space bar has a purpose.

So do tell us, what is it that makes you trot out so many lies?

[Abaddon]

Is it so difficult to see that if you plot data on graph paper delineated by 1/10 increments that it cannot be a log graph unless you were graphing log data.  Is that really not obvious?

What were the units in my graph? What were the units in the crater graph?

You don't know that either.

Just maybe therein lies my confusion...

No, therein lies your glaring error. Right there among your other lies.

[timfinch]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

[molesworth]

Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again? 

I assume your refer to Dundee, the Granite City. Now known as the City of Imminent Radioactive Death.

Also known as "Sunny Dundee", as it's the sunniest city in Scotland (although that probably isn't saying much...).  Also one of the main locations of companies in the surprisingly large and successful Scottish space industry!

[timfinch]

Is no one willing to discuss the incongruity of lunar surface radiation and the lunar landings?  We all are entranced by the pretty log graph and can't be distracted with facts and figures?

[bknight]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

[timfinch]

Why am I the only voice of dissention?  What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?  If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice.  What is up with that?