Radiation

[Abaddon]

Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

Well, my two are teens. I can't post what they think. They are egging me on to enter total rant mode.

[timfinch]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.

I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.

[Abaddon]

Please explain the government financing part of this article:  https://www.space.com/35850-spacex-private-moon-flight-nasa-reaction.html

So if this succeeds, you'll admit that Apollo was real?  That you've been mistaken about the radiation issues?  That it's hardly a "magic trick" to produce all the other stuff, and that you are incredibly ignorant of the relevant issues to claim it is?  That no government in the world has budgeted for a manned lunar mission since Apollo, and that it's the only reason there have been no manned lunar missions?

It can't be that expensive if a private enterprise can make an adequate profit by charging two passengers a million each.  I told you what it would take to convince me.  Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?

So now your claim is that some private enterprise is offering moon trips for  2 million.

OK. Maybe that happens on Planet Sausage, but here on Earth not so much. There have been a few "Space Tourists", a very few. They hitched rides on rockets that were going anyway with or without them. On top of that the cost was 20-40 million just to rent a chair.

Once again, your head has married your butt.

Do you ever read the articles or you simply winging your way through this?

Oh yes. The difference is that I read it and understood it. You did not because as established up thread, you have challenges in that arena.

[nomuse]

Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

I'd watch that!

I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

I can't take the credit, though. Smart kid. He came close to going for maths when he hit University.

[Luke Pemberton]

The problem is a bit more complex than demonstrating that values fluctuate around an average

We know, we told you that... and it's taken you this long to finally admit that an average is not the way to go.

That goes without saying.

Only once we spent 20 millions posts telling you.

The problem is find a window to encompass the duration of a mission that is significantly below average and then repeating such a feat 7 more times.  Remember GCR background radiation is only a portion of the overall radiation.

You set the boundary of below 0.22 mGr/day, that was your criterion. You chose this from Apollo 11 as it was the smallest number. Let's not forget that the other missions had greater average doses. So by your own criteria, the GCR dose fall below those values more frequently.

We've shown this to be the case with the CRaTER data, which is a less active cycle. Case closed in accord with your own criteria.

[gillianren]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.

I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.

No, see, I do understand the issues.  You cannot get around the fact that they could not have stayed in LEO, because people all over the world would have been able to see it.  It really is that simple.  If you can't explain that, the more logical explanation is that you are wrong about the radiation.  My knowledge of radiation is scanty.  I admit that, and I take the word of experts all over the world, in every country, who use Apollo data.  My knowledge of "people can see a thing" is pretty good, though.

[gillianren]

Jeez, now I want to do a whole YouTube thing--"Explaining Concepts to My Four-Year-Old."  I'm sure Simon can get his head around "calculated risk."

I'd watch that!

I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

I can't take the credit, though. Smart kid. He came close to going for maths when he hit University.

He's already a YouTube star! 

[Abaddon]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

I tried.  I tried to get you to understand that "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because my understanding of [thing] proves that it was faked" is less likely than "I don't understand how they did [thing]," but you're not getting that.  Unlike you, I won't ascribe that to any cognitive malfunction.  Frankly, I just don't think you want to admit you're wrong.

I couldn't leave this one uncommented upon.  Your positions is the same as mine.  You say it couldn't be faked because I can't imagine how they would fake a whole list of items and I say it must be fake because it cannot be done using the parameters provided.  We both take our position on a belief that neither can prove.  Well I can prove mine so we are a little alike.

Wrong again. We have evidence and you don't. I can certainly "imagine" how it could be faked, but that just gives rise to a plethora of other intractable problems for the hoax proponents. For example, one cannot fake the transmissions from the modules unless one proposes that the "ebil gubmint" can somehow overturn physics.

[Luke Pemberton]

It should be unless there aren't enough squares with all the other willfully ignorant claims.

The Bingo Card could be the size of a small tennis court. 

[Abaddon]

deleted

[gillianren]

The Bingo Card could be the size of a small tennis court. 

There would just be a ton of possible Bingo cards.

[Luke Pemberton]

I had the chance to explain bases to my nephew back when he was five or six, enough where he grasped the joke about there being "10" kinds of of people in the world (those who understand binary and those who don't.)

That's why computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween confused, as OCT31 = DEC25

[nomuse]

So, no one wants to discuss real issues?  Semantics, phrasing and wording are so much more interesting?  I'll monitor the thread over the next week and if I detect a pulse of intelligence, I might stop in and say hello.  I have better things to do with my time.

Terminology is not semantics. Using the wrong terms is as fatal to doing the math as getting the exponent wrong. You can't simple interchange "mass" and "weight" or "speed" and "acceleration" and think you are actually getting a result.

[Luke Pemberton]

Terminology is not semantics. Using the wrong terms is as fatal to doing the math as getting the exponent wrong. You can't simple interchange "mass" and "weight" or "speed" and "acceleration" and think you are actually getting a result.

...or say the dust is filled with radioactive alpha particles. Who even says that in physics?

It was either you, Zakalwe or nomuse that used that phrase 'words have meanings.' It's really clear that if the claimant cannot access the terminology, then they highly unlikely to proficient in the field.

[LunarOrbit]

Maybe this will solve the issue for all except Abaddon who is mentally challenged.

Tim,

I have banned you for 5 days for trolling and insults like the one quoted above. Improve your attitude or don't bother coming back.