UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!

[HeadLikeARock]

I've replied to him re both issues on the comments section of at least one video, not sure which one as there seems to be a certain amount of 'cross-pollination' between comments threads. He'll get a notification, whether he chooses to respond is anyone's guess. I specifically asked him to show some intellectual honesty and review his calculations (given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob). He still doesn't have a source for the figure he used for flux density of 10 MeV electrons, and he clearly can't use the 10 - 100 MeV figure.

I've posted umpteen links to academic articles in the scientific literature describing the electron flux in the outer belts and he hasn't responded so far. He should be able to access any that aren't open access via his university affiliation - I can only view them because I'm studying at the Open University at the moment.

Thanks for the info. Are you sure you're not blocked on his channel? Since YT has changed its system, they no longer inform you if you're blocked. Has Jarrah replied to any of your comments recently?

I don't think he's blocked me. He tends to reply when he thinks he has a come-back, and ignore when he clearly doesn't. He has no come-back to his radiation debacle other than to hold his hands up and admit defeat, something which he can't do, because he's pinned NASAs entire reason for faking the mission on the Van Allen belts being impassable in an Apollo CM.

[HeadLikeARock]

(given as how he had very unfairly played that card aimed directly at Bob)

What I found to be a hoot about Jarrah's claim of intellectual dishonesty was that it was patently dishonest.  He claimed his source was a NASA site that specifically covers the MAARBLE project.  The NASA site that he references in his video has absolutely nothing to do with the MAARBLE project, never mentions MAARBLE, and even predates it by about 12 years.  It's true that the information is reproduced on the MAARBLE web site, but that's not the source Jarrah referenced (plus the MAARBLE site is obviously a secondary source).

I pointed that fact out to him before his video reply went live. Whether he missed it, or saw it and chose to ignore it, is anyone's guess. Regardless, it's a done deal. The 10 - 100MeV claim is proven wrong, and his decision to use the flux density for lower energies at the average of 55 MeV simply compounded his error.

He doesn't know what he's doing, despite his empty boasts about acing a university assignment about Jupiter that used the same method. It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler. So if he plugged the right figures into the equations for Jupiter, he may well have got the right answer. As for trapped radiation around the Earth, we're back to the old adage...

GIGO! 

[Luke Pemberton]

It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler.

I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing. He's quite welcome to join this board and defend his method. I for one am waiting.

I understand that he is now claiming he aced an assignment on the Mars meteorite ALH84001 and is using this as a basis to claim expertise pertaining to planetary geology. Apparently you can't challenge him on his moon rock critique because he's studied ALH84001 and this qualifies him as an expert.

[Bob B.]

I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing.

Luke, have you reviewed my analysis?  I'd certainly welcome your critique.  Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

[HeadLikeARock]

It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler.

I might be misinterpreting your words, in which case I apologise in advance. However, his method and the numbers he plugged into his equations are both wrong. His method is hopeless, and despite his claims of acing assignments, he clearly does not know what he is doing. He's quite welcome to join this board and defend his method. I for one am waiting.

I understand that he is now claiming he aced an assignment on the Mars meteorite ALH84001 and is using this as a basis to claim expertise pertaining to planetary geology. Apparently you can't challenge him on his moon rock critique because he's studied ALH84001 and this qualifies him as an expert.

I'll have to old up my hands on this one, I  made the assumption that the method was right since he'd already been held to account for his division/multiplication error. My bad.

I think it's easier for most people to grasp the fact that with any equations, you need to be plugging the right numbers in. Since it's been clearly proven that the numbers he was using were WAY too high (by several orders of magnitude), pulling his method apart would almost a be pointless exercise, for the following reasons. Firstly, it would muddy the waters (I find it better to nail him on a particular issue to prevent the usual gish-gallop). Secondly, the Youtube comments section is nowhere near us robust or useful as a proper forum such as this. Thirdly, his target audience might be able to grasp that his figures are wrong, but are they really going to follow a complex argument about equations being incorrect? I'm not so sure.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke, have you reviewed my analysis?  I'd certainly welcome your critique.  Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

I read it a long time ago, and used it to double check my own understanding, I didn't spot anything to make me shudder. I often refer to your website and Clavius. Both sites have advanced my understanding. I'll read through your work again, but it might take me some time.

[Bob B.]

Luke, have you reviewed my analysis?  I'd certainly welcome your critique.  Much of what I'm doing is the same as what Jarrah did (though without the obvious blunders), so if I'm making any mistakes I want to get them corrected.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

I read it a long time ago, and used it to double check my own understanding, I didn't spot anything to make me shudder.

I only wrote it last month so you couldn't have read it long ago (unless you consider a few weeks a long time).  Maybe you're thinking about the article were I computed Apollo 11's trajectory, which was written 5 years ago.  The new article uses the trajectory data from that analysis and the AE-8/AP-8 models to compute the radiation dose that the astronauts would receive.

Many of the equations I'm using and the basic math is the same as what Jarrah used, so if he made some fundamental errors then I may be repeating them.  Of course I think I avoid all his obvious blunders, such as using the wrong flux, using the wrong energy, double counting the bremsstrahlung, miscalculating the shielding, etc.

[Luke Pemberton]

[I only wrote it last month so you couldn't have read it long ago (unless you consider a few weeks a long time). 

I did indeed think you were referring to your older article, which I did read many years ago when researching the van Allen belts and Apollo. I was being a bit lazy and didn't follow the link you posted. I'll sit and read the new work as soon as I can, it looks edifying.

[Bob B.]

He doesn't know what he's doing, despite his empty boasts about acing a university assignment about Jupiter that used the same method. It isn't the method that's the problem: it's how he's arrived at the figures he's plugged in to the equations (both for particle energy and particle flux) that's the real howler. So if he plugged the right figures into the equations for Jupiter, he may well have got the right answer.

I too didn't see any egregious errors in his mathematical method.  If we spoon fed him all the variables, I think he could up with a correct answer for the absorbed dose.  If he's doing that part incorrectly, then I fear I may be as well because my method is essentially the same.  Where Jarrah goes horribly wrong is when he actually has to think and figure things out.  The guy is clueless.

[onebigmonkey]

It kind of links in: Professor Brian Cox (pop star turned physicist who is famously intolerant of Apollo Hoax nuts) visits NASA's vacuum chamber:

His remarks about the construction of the chamber at around 30 seconds are interesting

[HeadLikeARock]

Jarrah's getting desperate.

He's clinging to the 10 - 100 MeV claim, hasn't even mentioned the retraction from Dr Odenwald. He also contacted MAARBLE, but didn't specifically ask about the 10-100 MeV values (he did copy the relevant section form their website) The questions he asked:-

"I assume by "volts" you mean "electron volts", am I right? And secondly, can you provide me with any papers with further information on these average electron energies?

The response clearly up the units and gave 6 references in answer to his question. None of them back up his claim. The highest readings I could find was for 3.5 - 16 MeV electrons, which existed for a few weeks during the period July 2000 - June 2001, with a maximum flux of 10^3 particles. The Van Allen Probes mission measures up to 20 MeV, and showed a flux density of practically zero for energies greater than 10 MeV.

Here are the references for anyone who's interested.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/new-twists-in-earths-radiation-belts/6
http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/20130412?pg=111#pg111
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v199/2012GM001368/2012GM001368.pdf
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Events/Meetings/HEPPA/pdf_files/Tutorials/Baker.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/main/index.html#.VD5PIWeSy1
http://www.rbsp-ect.lanl.gov/publications/Publications_Journals.php

I've responded on his comments page, but it's pretty obvious he's just giving us the runaround and doesn't care about using more accurate figures.

[scooter]

Jarrah is just going places where he doesn't belong. It's like watching Godzilla vs Bambi.

I must admit a certain level of entertainment in all of this...and a great deal of education.

[onebigmonkey]

Am I right in assuming that his asking for an 'average' electron energy here is totally inappropriate? Are the energy values normally distributed? If they aren't then he reveals an even deeper lack of understanding of even the most basic statistics.

[Luke Pemberton]

Am I right in assuming that his asking for an 'average' electron energy here is totally inappropriate?

Yes. He's trying to take an average energy and then multiply it by a flux. His flawed method has been explained to him multiple times. Anyone conversant in this field will understand the idea of integral fluxes and energy distributions. He clearly does not have a fundamental knowledge of calculus, if he did he would have applied a summation over the energy distribution for each flux component. He's managed to prove himself incorrect in front of people with expertise, and this time it is an absolute howler.

I said it years ago, he does more damage to the hoax theory with his ham-fisted attempts at math and physics. He portrays a veneer of expertise and fails miserably at each attempt when playing the sage.

[onebigmonkey]

That's what I thought

I know absolutely nothing about particle physics and the discussion here is way over my head, but I did teach stats at undergraduate level once upon a time, so I do know that in order for an average to be of any use whatsoever the population of data from which a sample has been drawn needs to be normally distributed.