A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece

[Bob B.]

Here's the video.

As of a couple of days ago, his thread was right near the top.

I was definitely looking in the wrong place (I was looking here:

I don't have time right now but I'll look over those comments latter.

[AstroBrant]

Regarding his use of the 10-100 MeV data on that NASA-related web page, has anyone tried to contact NASA about this? I don't feel qualified. I'll bet they would fix it within two days.

[AstroBrant]

I was definitely looking in the wrong place (I was looking here:

I don't have time right now but I'll look over those comments latter.

There are a lot of them. Get some popcorn. Most of it has to do with replication of the A11 pictures of Buzz on the ladder.

[Bob B.]

Regarding his use of the 10-100 MeV data on that NASA-related web page, has anyone tried to contact NASA about this? I don't feel qualified. I'll bet they would fix it within two days.

Good point.  There's a email address on that site, so I'll send them an email tomorrow.

[smartcooky]

I just noticed that I uploaded my review of JW's video on September 24 and his video updates are dated September 25.  The only place that I made any public announcement about my review was in this thread.

Hi, Jarrah!  How you doing? 

Rumbled huh!

So the Wunder Blunder spies upon us.

However, he is too gutless to participate in  debate here! He'll get his arse handed to him if he tries.

[AstroBrant]

However, he is too gutless to participate in  debate here! He'll get his arse handed to him if he tries.

Don't be disappointed. I'm 9794 miles away from his home right now, and I think I can hear his teeth grinding from here. (It's actually better than listening to him talk.)

[smartcooky]

However, he is too gutless to participate in  debate here! He'll get his arse handed to him if he tries.

Don't be disappointed. I'm 9794 miles away from his home right now, and I think I can hear his teeth grinding from here. (It's actually better than listening to him talk.)

Spare a thought for me then. He's "just across the pond"....



...and that grinding sound is deafening!

[Bob B.]

Regarding his use of the 10-100 MeV data on that NASA-related web page...

I just noticed something else about that web page that Jarrah insists is so infallible.  It includes the following:

Apollo astronauts, however, were forced to traverse the most intense regions of the Belts in their journey to the Moon. Fortunately, the travel time was only about 30 minutes so their actual radiation exposures inside the Apollo space capsule were not much more than the total dose received by Space Shuttle astronauts.

This fact counters some popular speculations that the moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have instantly died as they made the travel through the belts. In reality, they may have experienced minor radiation poisoning if they had been in their spacesuits on a spacewalk, but no spacewalk was ever scheduled for these very reasons. The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles

[Bob B.]

I was definitely looking in the wrong place (I was looking here:

I don't have time right now but I'll look over those comments latter.

There are a lot of them. Get some popcorn. Most of it has to do with replication of the A11 pictures of Buzz on the ladder.

I skipped over the stuff about the A11 photos; I was just interested in the radiation stuff.  I noticed that Jarrah is claiming that his computations are correct because he was graded correctly on the same computations for one of his classes.  That may be true because I don't have a problem with his equations and mathematics.  My analysis uses the same basic equations.  The problem is that his input is all wrong.  It doesn't matter if his mathematical execution is correct if he's using the wrong flux and energy.  I can see that he might score correctly on a test problem if he were given the right information to start with.  However, his Apollo analysis is all wrong because he doesn't understand how to get the right data to plug into the equations.

I don't post to YouTube, but if this issue comes up again, somebody might consider pointing this out to him.

[AstroBrant]

I was definitely looking in the wrong place (I was looking here:

I don't have time right now but I'll look over those comments latter.

There are a lot of them. Get some popcorn. Most of it has to do with replication of the A11 pictures of Buzz on the ladder.

I skipped over the stuff about the A11 photos; I was just interested in the radiation stuff.  I noticed that Jarrah is claiming that his computations are correct because he was graded correctly on the same computations for one of his classes.  That may be true because I don't have a problem with his equations and mathematics.  My analysis uses the same basic equations.  The problem is that his input is all wrong.  It doesn't matter if his mathematical execution is correct if he's using the wrong flux and energy.  I can see that he might score correctly on a test problem if he were given the right information to start with.  However, his Apollo analysis is all wrong because he doesn't understand how to get the right data to plug into the equations.

I don't post to YouTube, but if this issue comes up again, somebody might consider pointing this out to him.

I'll do it as soon as you tell me whether or not you want him to know it's from you.

[Dr.Acula]

Spare a thought for me then. He's "just across the pond"....

*snip*

...and that grinding sound is deafening!

Support your local HB 

I can't support WunderBlunder, he is too far away: Google Maps showed me 22 hours by flying from Düsseldorf Airport to Sydney.

So my charge would be Adrian. Round about one and a half hour by car from here to Tilburg. Sounds manageable 

[Bob B.]

I skipped over the stuff about the A11 photos; I was just interested in the radiation stuff.  I noticed that Jarrah is claiming that his computations are correct because he was graded correctly on the same computations for one of his classes.  That may be true because I don't have a problem with his equations and mathematics.  My analysis uses the same basic equations.  The problem is that his input is all wrong.  It doesn't matter if his mathematical execution is correct if he's using the wrong flux and energy.  I can see that he might score correctly on a test problem if he were given the right information to start with.  However, his Apollo analysis is all wrong because he doesn't understand how to get the right data to plug into the equations.

I don't post to YouTube, but if this issue comes up again, somebody might consider pointing this out to him.

I'll do it as soon as you tell me whether or not you want him to know it's from you.

You can use my name it you want, but it really doesn't matter to me.  I think he's reading this thread so he probably already knows.

Somewhere in that massive thread Jarrah writes, "I'd like to remind you that for calculating the does rates I used these exact same methods that I used in a university assignment in which I calculated the radiation does rates on Europa, and my methods are thoroughly watertight."  I think it should be put on record that the dispute is not with his method of computation, it's with his bogus input.  Garbage in, garbage out.

[ChrLz]

By 'university', is that like when he called his TAFE art teacher a photography and perspective expert?  A claim that I questioned here and then she herself had to correct, as quoted here...  What a putrid little liar he is.

I'm guessing by 'university', he might be *again* referring to TAFE.  TAFE (Technical and Further Education) 'colleges' are Oz's highly underfunded adult education system which offers a range of courses ranging from completely un-certified 'special interest' classes up to low-end diplomas.  Not University Degrees, and in fact it is quite rare for TAFE 'qualifications' to even count at all towards university coursework...  TAFE has been neglected over the years and is definitely not in the same league as a university.  Hey, I should know - I used to work for them, teaching quite a range of different topics from computing to astronomy and photography..  so my knowledge is 'in-house', if somewhat self-damning...   But note that I left TAFE to work for Flinders University, managing a real marine research facility run by a real University...

Anyway, Jarrah, now that you are reading this, I'd love to know which bit of which university you are misrepresenting now...  Brave enough to name names, JW?  I'd like to talk to your lecturers and ask them what they think of your claims...

[Bob B.]

Something else that needs correcting is JW's claim that the average area density of a human body is 80 g/cm².  That is one hell of a fat dude! 

[Dr.Acula]

Something else that needs correcting is JW's claim that the average area density of a human body is 80 g/cm².  That is one hell of a fat dude! 

The right number is 1.062 g/cm^3, if I remember right. But I'm confused by your unit (g/cm^2). A typing error? Or is it me, who's totally wrong?