Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality

Except you have been shown why this is not the case. With a 3D model, with pictures, with words.

[timfinch]

Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.

And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?

I invented nothing.  A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential.  This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.  if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel.  it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute.  An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.

[timfinch]

You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality

Except you have been shown why this is not the case. With a 3D model, with pictures, with words.

I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.

[raven]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

[Jason Thompson]

I invented nothing.  A logarithmic graph is defined by the fact that it's scale is logarithmic and not exponential.  This remains an obstacle to your comprehension.

No, it really doesn't. I have told you before I plot and analyse graphs, arithmetic and logarithmic, for a living. You placed emphasis on minor graduations on the axis that simply are not present on the CraTER graph, which clearly has a logarithmic scale on the y-axis.

if you had varying speeds then it is an average of those speeds that indicates the speed of travel.  it is obvious if you take 24 readings over a day no single reading is an accurate indication of the daily exposure as conditions could vary considerably minute to minute.  An average over that time period would be more of an accurate assessment of the daily dose.

Then why did you insist that one must add up the dose rates reported on the CraTER data set to get an overall daily dose rate? Why insist that they can't be dose rates, despite obviously being labelled as such, just because there were multiple readings given per day?
[/quote]

[Jason Thompson]

I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.

When dealing with a 3 dimensional situation it is entirely appropriate to consider it in 3 dimensions.

There is no spatial impairment here except in your case. You have been shown that it is possible for two orbits on the same inclination to have entirely different outcomes in relation to passing through or avoiding a torus on a different plane. Note that I never said I had produced an accurate depiction of the belts or the spacecraft, I was illustrating a point. But despite the obvious conclusion to be drawn you insist still there is commonality in the way two orbits interact with the torus just because they are on the same plane. Reality disagrees.

[timfinch]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

[Jason Thompson]

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.

This is absolutely untrue. The first 20 seconds of one of the videos explicitly shows the equatorial plane and the geomagnetic plane as different.

[timfinch]

I have been shown no such thing.  What I have been shown is a spatial impairment.  Most lack the ability to perceive data in anything except a 3 dimensional context.

When dealing with a 3 dimensional situation it is entirely appropriate to consider it in 3 dimensions.

There is no spatial impairment here except in your case. You have been shown that it is possible for two orbits on the same inclination to have entirely different outcomes in relation to passing through or avoiding a torus on a different plane. Note that I never said I had produced an accurate depiction of the belts or the spacecraft, I was illustrating a point. But despite the obvious conclusion to be drawn you insist still there is commonality in the way two orbits interact with the torus just because they are on the same plane. Reality disagrees.

Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.  Keep working on it.  I am in your corner.  You can do this.

[timfinch]

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.

This is absolutely untrue. The first 20 seconds of one of the videos explicitly shows the equatorial plane and the geomagnetic plane as different.

If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB?  There is no justification for the misconception.

[Jason Thompson]

Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.

Why you think someone who actually created a 3D model of what you describe can't visualise it is beyond me, and why you think the plane slicing the donut is actually the key point when the spacecraft's path on the ellipse is actually the key element is beyond me.

[Jason Thompson]

If that is true then why the misconception of bypassing the dangerous part of the VAB?  There is no justification for the misconception.

The only thing there is no justification for is your lying. There is no 'if', it is demonstrably true that the portrayal do not ignore the difference between equatorial and geomagnetic planes. The only question is why you feel you need to lie about it.

[raven]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

That was a waste of words. "You added clarity" How exactly?

All the portrayals failed to to show that the magnetic equator and consequently the center of the VAB are not at the earths equator but shifted 11.5 degrees.  They insinuated that the apollo path entered the VAB at 30 degrees to cente of VAB bypassing the heart of the high radiation when in fact they entered at 17.15 degrees and passing right through the heart of the radiation.

Did you . . . read the link I posted? Like, look at it at all? No, you did not, because if you did, the author did EXACTLY that. 
Go look at it again. Scroll down the section title 'Van Allen Radiation Belt Belts' in bold. Keep reading from there.

[timfinch]

Why you find it difficult to envision a plane slicing through a donut at an angle is a mystery to me.

Why you think someone who actually created a 3D model of what you describe can't visualise it is beyond me, and why you think the plane slicing the donut is actually the key point when the spacecraft's path on the ellipse is actually the key element is beyond me.

The ellipse from a side view is a straight line.  It is obvious that it passes through the highest regions of the VAB.  Shift the view from a top vied looking down on the north pole where the elliptical path is clearly defined.  Once again it is obvious that the path goes through the highest radiation zones of the VAB.  The only view in which it doesn't is the imaginary one in which the path proceeds at a ninety degree angle and then moves along the outer boundary of the VAB which is fictitious bull defecations spoon fed to retarded children.

[Jason Thompson]

In summary:

1: Gets shown numerous diagrams, videos, models to explain the way Apollo missed the most intense regions of the belts
2: Says they must all be wrong because they fail to include the difference between equatorial and geomagnetic inclination
3: Gets shown the numerus cases that do not fail to include that factor
4: Insists they are still wrong.