Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.

Shifting goalposts noted again. Your argument was that the GCR produced a constant background radiation level that must be a minimum for all missions beyond LEO. Now confronted with the fact that available data do not support that position, you try and weasel out of it. It was you who focused this discussionon the GCR, and it was that we discussed.

I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity

What are the types and energy levels of solar radiation versus GCR? Yet again you still fall back on 'radiation is radiation'.

GCR flux is modulated by solar radiation because solar radiation affects the density of matter in the solar system, over several trillion cubic kilometres. It essentially adds to the matter present in space. When you look at a volume of space the size of a solar system particle densities which we would define as a vacuum make a huge difference over those scales. For any given GCR particle there is more matter in the way as it passes through the solar system during high solar activity than during low. Effectively it's a better, denser shield.

But, and here's the kicker, that shield can be made up of particles a lot less energetic and penetrating than the GCR. Higher solar radiation does not mean the radiaton levels overall balance out, or that this radiation is as dangerous as CGR flux. Type, energy, flux density, all terms critical yet all terms you instst on ignoring in favour of 'radiaiton' as some catch-all.

meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

No, because radiation is not the same as radiation. Differences exist, and you are not accounting for them.

[Jason Thompson]

It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.

Predictable as ever. Tell me, which government do you think is operating this board, and why do you think that has anything to do with me?

Also, perhaps you can explain how allowing your posts to be made at all on a website that can be read by anyone constitutes intercepting and preventing a spread of information?

You remind me of Bill Kaysing, who repeatedly insisted the government was controlling the mass media to silence anyone who claimed the moon landings were faked. A claim he repeatedly made using the mass media. He also freely published his address and contact details. He died of natural causes after literally decades of spouting his stuff about how he was being silenced by the media he was using to claim he was being silenced...

[Luke Pemberton]

I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.  I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

Jason has addressed this point, but I will add. The data you brought to the forum shows you are wrong on this point. The CRaTER data clearly illustrates a modulated background radiation punctuated by SPEs. The modulation of the background radiation is such that it has a minimum at solar maximum. The very fact that the SPEs are recorded informs us that the detectors recording the data do not discriminate between the outward flux of particle radiation from the Sun, and the incoming GCR radiation. They record all background radiation levels, including particle radiation that is responsible for the modulation of the GCR, the solar wind. The radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably.

The modulation of GCR is predominately due to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) produced by the solar wind. This was suggested as early as 1962 (Ahluwalia and Dessler, 1962) whereby it was proposed that electric drift in the solar wind leads to convective removal of GCR from the inner heliosphere, modulating the CGR flux.

At solar maximum the solar wind *increases*, and it produces several mechanisms that perturb the IMF. The solar wind produces tangled magnetic fields that stretch out into space through the slow solar wind, the high speed solar wind speed, interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients and shocks.

The interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients form a diffusion region, the heliocentric barrier, further out in the heliosphere. This is knows as the global merged interaction region after Burlaga et al. (1993), which reduced the GCR intensity at Earth's orbit. We are familiar with this idea, and it has been shown from the data presented in this thread.

Now, if one examines the solar wind, the increase in radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably has thermal energies (a few eV - 10 keV). This radiation presents a negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut in a space ship. In fact, the solar wind is readily absorbed by the layers of a space suit, so present negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut on EVA.

So, once again, you have hand waved you way into showing you ignorance of pertinent facts and lack all understanding of the different components of particle fluxes that exist in the solar system.

[Luke Pemberton]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

I'm glad to see you have plotted the CRaTER data, and are now over you issue with reading log graphs properly. That's a move forward on your part.

As for your last pre-bedtime graph. It tells you what we have telling you all along. The GCR flux would have been lower on cycle 20 due to that cycle having an increased activity over cycle 24. Therefore, the CRaTER data that falls below your threshold for long periods of time would have been even lower in 1969.

It also informs us that the lunar surface dose that you propose was prohibitively high, does not manifest itself as you claim. Isn't it a little bit of a pain when you post sources that refute your own claims?

However, the CRaTER data is a red herring that you have created. It was taken in cycle 24. What don't you  understand about this point, or do you think we have simply forgotten in the space of 5 days while you were serving a ban for being rude to forum members?

[bknight]

I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?

Not in this case tim started a new thread that was closed when he was suspended.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax

[bknight]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Pretty much the opposite.

Here's your source:

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1311&context=physics_facpub

Exploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard

How many days in space would it take in space before an astronaut exceeded modern limits on dosage?

Excellent read!!  Now if tim will read it and all the attached figures he would note in figure 2 and three that Apollo occurred at times when radiation was at a minimum and would imply that the reported does to be correct and tim is incorrect.

[bknight]

tim we were in the middle of a discussion concerning the amount of radiation received by the Apollo crews.
In post 3 and again in post 17 you stated:

A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
 1. The LEO is the lowest
 2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
 3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
 4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

After posting Bob Braeunig's calculation of radiation received during transit through the VARB

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Your comment was:

I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.

You have been repeatedly show that the trajectory through the VARB was not through the entire width of the belts but traversed through less dense parts of the torus shaped VARB as show in this video linked several times in this thread.

Now you as can clearly visualize the Apollo CSM transited the portion of the VARB in about 2 hours as Bob indicated, not the 4.5 hours you guess. 
Bob included the electron radiation, you just need to re-read and understand what Bob has calculated. Electron part was included about half way down on the page.

In summary to this long post:
The radiation received was not great through the VARB.
The transit time through the VARB was about two hours.
You are incorrect concerning the radiation received through the VARB, or the trajectory of Apollo and the corresponding time in the VARB.

[Luke Pemberton]

I can see I was sorely missed.  Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.

Don't flatter yourself. no really cares about another scientifically illiterate blow hard on the *Interweb*. You're not the first to make a fool of yourself and you won't be the last. The only issue here is putting right your bogus argument. You are incidental to the argument.

If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.

Yawn.

It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax.  Who knew?

Yawn

I also noticed there was movement on the logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.

No, we already knew. Smartcooky finally peeled back the veneer of your ignorance. You believed that the minor divisions were scaled according to arithmetic distribution of the exponents, and persisted to call it an exponential arithmetic graph. You're not only scientifically semi-illiterate, you're also mathematically semi-illiterate.

This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.

It was you that could not keep up. Let's remind you that we also had to teach you above averages.

Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think.  They not only booted me, they closed the thread.  What's up with that?

Already did, and saw the same pompous, self-aggrandising, pseudo-scientific drivel posted there as you have posted here. You got booted as you didn't answer the questions. LO has much more patience, but then I'm guessing that CQ has a broader remit and broader topic audience, so quickly brings down the hammer as they don't waste time with the hoax nonsense. This forum is dedicated to ApolloHoax.

[molesworth]

Already did, and saw the same pompous, self-aggrandising, pseudo-scientific drivel posted there as you have posted here. You got booted as you didn't answer the questions. LO has much more patience, but then I'm guessing that CQ has a broader remit and broader topic audience, so quickly brings down the hammer as they don't waster time with the hoax nonsense. This forum is dedicated to ApolloHoax.

Cosmoquest (full disclosure - I'm also a member there) has a strict set of rules for people posting in their conspiracy and "against the mainstream" forums, including politeness (on both sides) presenting evidence or claims in a suitable form, and answering relevant questions properly and in a timely manner.

Tim, you flouted these rules on several occasions, and were given a lot of leeway as a conspircy claimant.  You haven't been "banned", you are suspended because of your continued disparaging of other posters, and refusal to answer questions.

There's no policy against discussing Apollo hoax theories, either on Cosmoquest or here, but you need to present your evidence, and then answer any challenges made of that evidence.  On both forums (fora?) you haven't been able to counter the arguments against your ideas, and simply repeating them over and over again doesn't make them any less wrong with each repetition...

[timfinch]

I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?

I was referring to my unpleasant experience at the Nazi compound called Cosmoquest.

[timfinch]

I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.

And everyone else is at a loss as to how you can continually misinterpret the information you are trying to provide as a support for your argument. You have supplied no information that contradicts the figures recorded by Apollo, however many times you claim it does. Radiation levels recorded by Apollo are an irrelevant sideshow, there are much simpler proofs that require far more complex explanations to dismiss.

You are pinning your hopes on an instrument in lunar orbit that has repeatedly photographed evidence of human activity that is completely in accordance with both the historical record and the observations of other spacecraft.

I pin my hopes on no such thing.  Everything NASA claims that man accomplished on the moon can be and has been accomplished on unmanned lunar missions.  You saw the magic trick and now you believe in magic?  There is absolutely no way to make a lunar transit without a magnitude greater mission dose than the Apollo missions reported.  This is the claim I am willing to defend.

[timfinch]

I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.

Shifting goalposts noted again. Your argument was that the GCR produced a constant background radiation level that must be a minimum for all missions beyond LEO. Now confronted with the fact that available data do not support that position, you try and weasel out of it. It was you who focused this discussionon the GCR, and it was that we discussed.

I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity

What are the types and energy levels of solar radiation versus GCR? Yet again you still fall back on 'radiation is radiation'.

GCR flux is modulated by solar radiation because solar radiation affects the density of matter in the solar system, over several trillion cubic kilometres. It essentially adds to the matter present in space. When you look at a volume of space the size of a solar system particle densities which we would define as a vacuum make a huge difference over those scales. For any given GCR particle there is more matter in the way as it passes through the solar system during high solar activity than during low. Effectively it's a better, denser shield.

But, and here's the kicker, that shield can be made up of particles a lot less energetic and penetrating than the GCR. Higher solar radiation does not mean the radiaton levels overall balance out, or that this radiation is as dangerous as CGR flux. Type, energy, flux density, all terms critical yet all terms you instst on ignoring in favour of 'radiaiton' as some catch-all.

meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

No, because radiation is not the same as radiation. Differences exist, and you are not accounting for them.

I am sure I made the distinction between radiation types but I won't belabor the point.  My claim is and has always been that the baseline for lunar transit radiation dosage has to be GCR.  No mission can have a mission dosage less than GCR.  I have yet to take into account the transit through the VAB on lunar orbit or actual lunar landing all of which are a higher radiation area.  If we can't demonstrate the apollo's mission dose was not at least as high as cislunar space radiation then what hope have we of proving they did any of it?

[timfinch]

It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.

Predictable as ever. Tell me, which government do you think is operating this board, and why do you think that has anything to do with me?

Also, perhaps you can explain how allowing your posts to be made at all on a website that can be read by anyone constitutes intercepting and preventing a spread of information?

You remind me of Bill Kaysing, who repeatedly insisted the government was controlling the mass media to silence anyone who claimed the moon landings were faked. A claim he repeatedly made using the mass media. He also freely published his address and contact details. He died of natural causes after literally decades of spouting his stuff about how he was being silenced by the media he was using to claim he was being silenced...

All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted.  My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons.  The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour.  If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.

[timfinch]

I really don't think you guys are looking at background radiation correctly.  It appears to me that you believe that because GCR is reduced by Solar Activity then a corresponding reduction in background radiation occurs.  I would point out the cause of GCR reduction is the presence of Solar radiation.  Solar radiation is not the same radiation as GCR but it is nevertheless radiation.  It is the reason the average background radiation is so high.  It is logical to assume that background radiation increases in relation to solar activity meaning that because Apollo 11 ventured out during solar peak it would have experienced ad inordinately high background radiation.

Jason has addressed this point, but I will add. The data you brought to the forum shows you are wrong on this point. The CRaTER data clearly illustrates a modulated background radiation punctuated by SPEs. The modulation of the background radiation is such that it has a minimum at solar maximum. The very fact that the SPEs are recorded informs us that the detectors recording the data do not discriminate between the outward flux of particle radiation from the Sun, and the incoming GCR radiation. They record all background radiation levels, including particle radiation that is responsible for the modulation of the GCR, the solar wind. The radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably.

The modulation of GCR is predominately due to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) produced by the solar wind. This was suggested as early as 1962 (Ahluwalia and Dessler, 1962) whereby it was proposed that electric drift in the solar wind leads to convective removal of GCR from the inner heliosphere, modulating the CGR flux.

At solar maximum the solar wind *increases*, and it produces several mechanisms that perturb the IMF. The solar wind produces tangled magnetic fields that stretch out into space through the slow solar wind, the high speed solar wind speed, interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients and shocks.

The interplanetary manifestations of coronal transients form a diffusion region, the heliocentric barrier, further out in the heliosphere. This is knows as the global merged interaction region after Burlaga et al. (1993), which reduced the GCR intensity at Earth's orbit. We are familiar with this idea, and it has been shown from the data presented in this thread.

Now, if one examines the solar wind, the increase in radiation that you suggest raises the background considerably has thermal energies (a few eV - 10 keV). This radiation presents a negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut in a space ship. In fact, the solar wind is readily absorbed by the layers of a space suit, so present negligible radiation hazard to an astronaut on EVA.

So, once again, you have hand waved you way into showing you ignorance of pertinent facts and lack all understanding of the different components of particle fluxes that exist in the solar system.

Consider this graph if you will.  Is is the same graph that performing a median of the data would provide.  All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.  The curve is not flat.  That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.  It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

[timfinch]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

I'm glad to see you have plotted the CRaTER data, and are now over you issue with reading log graphs properly. That's a move forward on your part.

As for your last pre-bedtime graph. It tells you what we have telling you all along. The GCR flux would have been lower on cycle 20 due to that cycle having an increased activity over cycle 24. Therefore, the CRaTER data that falls below your threshold for long periods of time would have been even lower in 1969.

It also informs us that the lunar surface dose that you propose was prohibitively high, does not manifest itself as you claim. Isn't it a little bit of a pain when you post sources that refute your own claims?

However, the CRaTER data is a red herring that you have created. It was taken in cycle 24. What don't you  understand about this point, or do you think we have simply forgotten in the space of 5 days while you were serving a ban for being rude to forum members?

If your memory served you better you'd remember that I openly acknowledged it was not an apples and apples and comparison.  I wanted to use the stated GCR range of NASA which was 2.4 mgy/day to 6. mgy/day as the basis of my position.  I asked if anyone hand any information to the contrary and  then I would use it instead.  There are no herrings red or otherwise in the soup of denial.  It was subtle but it obviously went under your radar.  You claimed the graph refuted my position.  Look again mon ami.  What does it show as GCR levels for 1969 through 1974?  Touche!  Your serve.