Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Tim, there is literally a model that is not at 90 degrees, and the larger ellipse still goes over and under the belt. Show me where my model shows a '90 degree' avoidance of the belt.

[Mag40]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.



Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.

The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.

[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.

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.

Could you kindly repost it it?  I scrolled back 4 pages and didn't see it and I don't remember you posting it.  Help me out here.

[timfinch]

are you claiming that the path deviates from the orbital plane?  If so, why and by how much?

That is a gibberish statement. There are an infinite number of orbital planes.

Yellow path denotes Orion, Red is Apollo. Purple crescents are the two belts.



Not exactly Constable, but it shows the paths. Orion comes back on its apogee through the inner belt. The Apollo flights do not.

The obvious problem with this illustration is it simultaneously displays two vantage points.  It shows the VAB from a 2d side view and the elliptical orbit from a top view.  Pick a single view and stick with it and there would be no confusion.

It shows them both from a top view, there is nothing wrong with the illustration. You simply are afraid to concede because you think it makes you look stupid.

Quite clearly, to anyone who can understand an ellipse, the yellow line will pass through areas that the red line cannot. It will also do it every orbit.

Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?

[Luke Pemberton]

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.

[timfinch]

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.

Caution!  There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...

[gillianren]

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Ah, but you miss an important point about that particular fallacy.  Namely, "the people" in the argument must, for it to be fallacious, have no particular expertise in the subject.  Once the people being cited are experts in their fields, using their consensus as evidence is no longer fallacious. 

I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting  or disproving a hoax theory.  My goal is singular.  I  intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic.  As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage.  That is not my intent.

However, in making that argument, you insist that everything else must have somehow been faked.  Which means you're absolutely promoting a hoax, and that you cannot even begin to suggest how that hoax would be perpetrated just makes you look foolish, since--as I do keep pointing out--you are incapable of explaining why the answer is not more simply "I do not understand the thing I'm claiming is wrong so well as I say I do."

[Mag40]

The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.

[Abaddon]

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.

What kind of graph is this?

[Abaddon]

Is that the way the Van Allen Belt appears when you are looking down from the poles?  Why do they call it a donut or toroidal?

Can you stick your finger in a ring donut? Without touching the edges? You claim that this is an impossible task. And further, that nobody ever anywhere can do such a thing because it is physically impossible to do so. That is how daft your claim is.

[Mag40]

I have proven that Robert Braeunig has deceived you.

A lie.

I have proven that there is no low radiation path through the VAB.

A lie.

I have proven that the background radiation is as high as the reported mission dose of Apollo 11.

A lie. You have proven you don't know how to read graphs or look at the data that forms them.

I have proven that the lunar soil is radioactive and I have proven that the moon itself is a source of radiation.

No, NASA proved there was secondary radiation, not you. You haven't quantified it or explained how it significantly penetrates the suit and boots.

I have proven that a transit through the VAB is at a radiation level that is the significant component of a lunar transit.

A point that was never in question. You arrogantly claim to have proven this?

What remains to be proven to convince you that the lunar landing could not have occurred?

They occurred as the evidence records. You have proven that you are made from the same mould as all Moon landing deniers. No matter what is presented to you, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the problem could simply be your inept understanding.

[timfinch]

Ah, but you miss an important point about that particular fallacy.  Namely, "the people" in the argument must, for it to be fallacious, have no particular expertise in the subject.  Once the people being cited are experts in their fields, using their consensus as evidence is no longer fallacious. 
  Opinion?

I have repeatedly stated that I am uninterested in promoting  or disproving a hoax theory.  My goal is singular.  I  intend to prove that the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 is unrealistic.  As a consequence of that goal if it can be deduced the existence of a hoax exist then consider it collateral damage.  That is not my intent.

However, in making that argument, you insist that everything else must have somehow been faked.  Which means you're absolutely promoting a hoax, and that you cannot even begin to suggest how that hoax would be perpetrated just makes you look foolish, since--as I do keep pointing out--you are incapable of explaining why the answer is not more simply "I do not understand the thing I'm claiming is wrong so well as I say I do."
[/quote]
It is a consequence and not an intention.

[timfinch]

The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

You have had this explained to you in excruciating detail. The plane the ellipses occur on has no significance to the way one intersects areas of the belts and the other does not.

You suffer from a gross conceptional area.  Rethink and repost.  I am embarrassed for you.

[Abaddon]

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.

Don't shoot the messenger because you didn't understand the 2D representation in 3D space. This is like the graph debacle again. You didn't understand the representation of the pretty picture. You've been shown how how different ellipses can intersect a torus at different positions. Anyone with a set of eyes can see it, and anyone with integrity would have put their hand up and admitted their mistake.

Your howler on the position of the Cape and launch site, and the polar orbit shows you really are fumbling around in the dark. The polar orbit illustrates you are utterly clueless. You've read a few words on Wikipedia, threw them in here and hope they stuck. Polar orbit indeed, now that it funny.

Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

Polar orbit... that's all I have to say to you now. Polar orbit. What buffoonery.

Caution!  There is a sniper in the trees taking pot shots...

Some of us have to live with such realities.

[timfinch]

There it is.  I am tired again.  Off to bed.  Look for me in 9 to 10 hours.  Keep thinking and to thine ownself be true