Author Topic: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!  (Read 56622 times)

Offline HeadLikeARock

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #60 on: October 27, 2014, 05:36:06 PM »
Nice one Bob, that graphic is very, er, graphic! Even if he'd stuck to 7 MeV, or 10 MeV, with the flux values he used, he'd have way over-estimated the total dose. Nope, he just threw 3 random, high values in there, assigned them gave them all the flux at 1 MeV, and added them all up. I'd hate for him to do a background radiation count in a similar fashion, I suspect we'd all have friend a long time ago.

On another extremely illuminating note, for someone who's trying to make hay from his "intellectual honesty", the blurb he wrote about his latest video says that the MAARBLE scientist "confirmed that the section on their site should indeed read: "10 to 100 million electron volts, on average". Notice the quotes.

he did no such thing, of course. Jarrah quoted the relevant section, then simply asked "I assume by 'volts' you mean 'electron volts'?"

To which the reply was "You are right by 'volts' we mean 'electron volts'"

I think Jarrah realises he's been found out over the radiation issue. Even though he must know he's wrong, I confidently predict that his next video will portray him as a plucky investigator who uncovered damning evidence of a massive NASA cover-up over the radiation values: further 'proof' that Apollo was faked. In subsequent videos in months and years to come, if ever the radiation issue crops up again, he will simply hand-wave it away with a casual reference to the FACT!!! that he already proved a massive cover-up at NASA over how high the radiation figures actually are. Dr Odenwald is "in on it", the MAARBLE scientists are "in on it".

I hope I'm wrong, and he admits his errors instead.


Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #61 on: October 27, 2014, 07:58:30 PM »
he did no such thing, of course.

That's a perfect example of Jarrah's "lawyerly" approach.  He sneaks in his own interpretation alongside a legitimate statement and makes it sound like his quoted expert confirmed all of it.

Quote
I think Jarrah realises he's been found out over the radiation issue.

I doubt it.  He'll play up the muddied waters to say he's "somehow" still right.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2014, 12:50:25 AM »
There's no way to know what's really going through his mind, of course, but it's hard not to wonder: does he really, honestly, truly still think he's in the right?

I guess it's still possible, if he's convinced himself that there's a vast conspiracy to falsify the published numbers.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2014, 06:31:39 AM »
I hope I'm wrong, and he admits his errors instead.

Doubt it, but I have seen enough in his radiation calculations to confirm what Jay unraveled at the IMDb. Simply for my own satisfaction it has confirmed what I already knew, Jarrah hasn't got a clue about radiation and how to apply math to solve complex problems.

I am sure he will keep up his story that radiation was prohibitive to Apollo, but now I care even less about his 'radiation science' than before. I'm satisfied that the Grandson of the Great Sensei and Nephew to Ralph cannot step beyond multiply, subtract, divide and addition. Without more advanced function he has no grounds to claim any sort of expertise. As they say in my part of the world, 'job's a guddun.'
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 06:39:24 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Tedward

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2014, 06:37:02 AM »
It is interesting reading but confirms my impression and expectations.

He has a superb opportunity with which to prove his case in a well written, well researched article.

Obviously not going to happen as the events do not lend the facts for him to do this in his way where his work can be tested. At least in the main stream where serious people can point out the errors. All about control of his position.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2014, 07:22:30 AM »
I have just one more image to post.  HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake.  The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale.  The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy.  The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.


 
Bravo, Bob B!  And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required?  Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2014, 08:03:02 AM »
Quote

 
Bravo, Bob B!  And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required?  Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...

Like this? You mean rubbing it in by quoting the figure again?  ;D
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #67 on: October 28, 2014, 10:21:21 AM »
I have just one more image to post.  HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake.  The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale.  The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy.  The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.


 

It'd be rude not to.....
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2014, 01:56:12 PM »
It's obvious that for some perverse reason, the blunder gets some sort of kick out of creating controversy about his inept findings. So much so, that he couldn't care less about accuracy, so long as his team of idiotic followers buy in to it. Since he clearly follows this thread. This next bit is for Jarrah:

If I have one 10p piece and one £1 piece. The average total is 55p.
If I have a thousand 10p pieces and one £1 piece, it isn't. It's just about 10.1.

You don't just fail basic maths here, I think you are either too dumb to care or you do it deliberately. It's not quite on a par with multiplying instead of dividing, then blaming your teacher, but it is pretty useless. I hope you realise that a degree involves not just spewing out what you learn, it involves a deep understanding that you appear to be woefully short of. NASA landed men on the Moon, I think you know this, but the quantum leap of integrity to actually admit you were wrong all those years and the resulting "humiliation" prohibits you from ever doing this. That is a shame.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #69 on: October 29, 2014, 05:32:26 AM »
Quote

 
Bravo, Bob B!  And yes, that's a great way to end this thread - so if we get several more responses, may I suggest another quote as required?  Not that I want to help rub it in, JW...

Like this? You mean rubbing it in by quoting the figure again?  ;D
Yes... yes, that's definitely the idea..  It's just a pity (snerk) that (chortle) Jarrah (snicker) isn't (smirk) reading any of this..

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2014, 01:14:42 PM »
If I have one 10p piece and one £1 piece. The average total is 55p.
If I have a thousand 10p pieces and one £1 piece, it isn't. It's just about 10.1.

This might be of interest to non-mathematicians like myself and Jarrah White.

Maths was my worst subject at school, but checking in my head only, I instantly agreed with Mag40's first average of 55p.
1.1 ÷ 2 = .55

But I had to get out the calculator for the second line, and got a very different answer. My 0.1008991 versus "just about 10.1."

So I wondered if 10.1. indicated a ratio or something else I was ignorant of, so I next had to check how many new p in a new £, because when New Zealand converted to decimal currency on 10 July 1967, £1NZ became NZ$2 and 10 shillings became $1. I remember it well because I took my girlfriend to lunch that day and we were both amused at the new "play money" we had. Many of the $ c. coins and notes were smaller than £ s. d. coins and notes.

Mag40's first line tells me there's 100 p in a new £, so I could do the sum as if I'm using New Zealand currency. So why the difference?

The buttons I pressed on the calculator were:
1000 x .1 + 1 ÷ 1001 =
and it answered: 0.1008991

Now, apparently there's the way el-cheapo calculators work and there's also that BEDMAS stuff and proper algebraic notation (IIRC) to consider, and if I put the above sum into my spreadsheet and my scientific calculator, they both give an answer of 100.000999. So that produces another complication -- now there are three very different answers.

Breaking down my sum, it becomes:
1000 x .1 = 100 (1000 10p coins = £100)
100 + 1 = 101 (£100 + £1 = £101)
101 ÷ 1001 = 0.1008991 (£101 ÷ 1001 coins = £0.1008991)

If you're reading this, Jarrah, what answer(s) do you get?
10.1 or
0.1008991 or
100.000999 or
something else?

Real mathematicians will probably be laughing at what I missed, but I think I've figured it out now, and that Mag40 should have put a p in the second line. But maybe that's not how such sums are written in the UK.

By the way, I can still add small columns of £ s. d. (pounds, shillings and pence) in my head, but my late father would be horrified at how slow and how inaccurate I occasionally am.

On the other side of the coin, last weekend I bought a $3.30 ice cream at my local shop, and a kid of about age 12 to 14 was serving, so I said I'd only pay him if he could tell me how much change he had to give me from $4. He had no idea and had to ask the owner, whose eyebrows shot up! Teenagers in NZ nowadays can't do sums that I could do when I was about 7 or 8 -- they instead rely on electronic devices and batteries never going flat and electricity never being cut off, which often happens where I live, rurally.

Our very last power disruption was a weird, unusual one where the current or wattage somehow diminished but stayed running. Lights dimmed considerably, but refrigerators and TV sets wouldn't function.  I switched everything off in case appliances got damaged and lit a candle. Eventually the power was cut off for about 30 minutes when repairmen must have found the fault, then it was switched back on and was normal. But I wonder what caused that fault, which I've never experienced before. It was a windy night with light showers, so maybe a wet tree branch touch power lines and drained some of the current.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:45:55 PM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #71 on: October 30, 2014, 02:23:01 PM »
Teenagers in NZ nowadays can't do sums that I could do when I was about 7 or 8 -- they instead rely on electronic devices and batteries never going flat and electricity never being cut off, which often happens where I live, rurally.

I once tried to explain to a teenager how to multiply by ten, namely add a zero to the end. I gave up after 15 minutes.

[mischief mode] Don't forget the Figure, hopefully we can house train this puppy dog by rubbing his nose in it some more. [/mischief mode]


 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 02:24:47 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #72 on: October 30, 2014, 03:12:34 PM »
This might be of interest to non-mathematicians like myself and Jarrah White.

Maths was my worst subject at school, but checking in my head only, I instantly agreed with Mag40's first average of 55p.
1.1 ÷ 2 = .55

But I had to get out the calculator for the second line, and got a very different answer. My 0.1008991 versus "just about 10.1."

Kiwi. The average of a group of positive numbers cannot be less than the value of the lowest number in the group. Its doesn't matter whether you have 100, 1000 or a million 10p coins to go with the £1 coin, the average of that group can never reach down to 10p, let alone to a value below it.

What you have almost certainly done is forgotten to x100 at the end

So, your 0.1008991 should be 10.08991 which is, "just about 10.1"

ETA: Confirmed

1000 x 10p coins = 10,000p
1 x £1 coin = 100p
TOTAL = 10100p
number of coins = 1001

so 10100 ÷ 1001 = 10.089910089
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 03:23:49 PM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2014, 09:50:02 PM »
What you have almost certainly done is forgotten to x100 at the end

Shush!  You've given the game away.

But you're right, of course. Mag40 was talking in or "p" or new pence, and I was talking in new pounds.

The object of the game was to show my workings and write a rambling, partly idiotic post (like some HBs write), that has irrelevancies like the price of ice cream, teens' inability to add or subtract, and a story about a "mysterious" but real power cut.

I sort of hoped that Wunder Blunder might check my sums in his 'puter and find that the 100.000999 figure is indeed "correct", so then he would publicly slam Mag40 for criticising him in post 68 (even though the criticism was unusually moderate and polite for this forum) and perhaps say that Mag40 is obviously just another nutty Apollo-Believer who can't even do a simple sum and get it right, therefore his criticism is unfounded and irrelevant. (Which logical fallacy would that be? Straw Man? That's another subject I know too little about, so please help.)

And if the Wunder did that, Mag40 and the rest of us would have something more to laugh at, besides a graph with heaps of red and so little blue that it's hard for old eyes to see it.  ;D

To blatantly steal from another good AB brain in the southwest Pacific:
Oh, I swear, (snerk) the Devil (chortle) made me (snicker) do it!(smirk)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 11:12:40 PM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!
« Reply #74 on: November 01, 2014, 05:05:57 PM »

Our very last power disruption was a weird, unusual one where the current or wattage somehow diminished but stayed running. Lights dimmed considerably, but refrigerators and TV sets wouldn't function.
This sounds like a primary phase failure. I remember being puzzled the first time I encountered one, but it made perfect sense once I learned what had happened.

Electric power systems almost always use 3-phase AC; that's why power lines almost always come in groups of three. Most residential users (except in Europe) get only a single phase, and the transformer that supplies them can be wired in one of two ways: between a primary conductor and neutral (wye), or between two primary conductors (delta). The latter is standard in California; I don't know about NZ.

If, with delta wiring, a tree takes out one of the three primary conductors, then customers on transformers wired across the remaining two phases won't know that anything has happened. But the 2/3 of customers on transformers connected to the affected phase will have their supplies connected in series across the remaining good phase. The voltage that each sees depends on the relative loading of the two groups; if they're equal, they'll see half the normal supply voltage. If one presents a much heavier load than the other, the lighter group will see nearly normal voltage and the heavy group will see very little.

The power probably cut out completely when the utility crews arrived and cut off the remaining two phases so they could repair the broken one.