### Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 631170 times)

#### timfinch

• Jupiter
• Posts: 865
• BANNED
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1530 on: April 08, 2018, 01:17:55 PM »
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data then you graph will not represent anything but arithmetic data, which is fine if that is what you want.  Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do. I sometimes miss high school, don't you?

#### gillianren

• Uranus
• Posts: 2211
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1531 on: April 08, 2018, 01:19:19 PM »
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

#### Abaddon

• Saturn
• Posts: 1132
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1532 on: April 08, 2018, 01:26:21 PM »
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.

#### nomuse

• Jupiter
• Posts: 859
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1533 on: April 08, 2018, 01:28:54 PM »
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data then you graph will not represent anything but arithmetic data, which is fine if that is what you want.  Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do. I sometimes miss high school, don't you?

Balsamic and vinegar for me.

#### timfinch

• Jupiter
• Posts: 865
• BANNED
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1534 on: April 08, 2018, 01:32:57 PM »
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely know that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 01:40:56 PM by timfinch »

#### Jason Thompson

• Uranus
• Posts: 1601
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1535 on: April 08, 2018, 01:34:03 PM »
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data...

No it's not. The numbers match the position on the log scale exactly. I can put the log divisions in and the graph is not changed.

But thank you for being exactly as predictable as expected. Asked me to plot in Excel on a log scale to prove you right, did it, proved you wrong, so you conclude Excel is doing something with the numbers that it absolutely is not.

Quote
into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.

Really? See the attached graph where I've put in the log scale minor divisions too.

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

#### timfinch

• Jupiter
• Posts: 865
• BANNED
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1536 on: April 08, 2018, 01:37:11 PM »
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 01:39:46 PM by timfinch »

#### Abaddon

• Saturn
• Posts: 1132
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1537 on: April 08, 2018, 01:37:21 PM »
Okay, let's try this again, this time without the arrogance.

Tim.  What would it get you to admit you don't understand an article you've Googled?  That you do not have the relevant knowledge to understand why it proves you to be wrong?  I mean, for heaven's sake, I learned the difference between mean and median in seventh grade, and I was an English major in college and have little to no scientific expertise!
I am truly at a loss to understand what you are going on about.  I surely now that mean is the sum divided by the quantity while median is the middle data point when all data is arranged in numerical order.  Where the distinct challenge lies in grasping the concept of a logarithmic graph and it's purpose which as an english major I am sure you did not spend a lot of time studying the concept but is is great to see you bring your journalistic prowess to bear on this sticky problem.
It isn't a "sticky" problem. You are simply wrong

#### Jason Thompson

• Uranus
• Posts: 1601
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1538 on: April 08, 2018, 01:39:22 PM »
One other thing.  You can set the scale of your graph to exponents

DO tell me exactly how that is done in any way other than setting the scale to a log scale in Excel.

Quote
but if you don't convert the data first to logarithmic data

You say this a lot. I will say again, logs of numbers between 0 and 1 are negative values, so how exactly is this data being converted to logs without showing any negative values?

Quote
Now should you convert the raw data into logarithmic data then you are simply doing what plotting on a logarithmic graph would do.

This is simply crap. Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted. A data point at 100000 is at 100000 on an arithmetic or log scale. The only difference is where on the axis that is because of the different scales. Incidentally, the log10 of 100000 is 5. Now how could that conversion go un-noticed? What you are proposing is that the axis labels and the data don't actually match.
[/quote]
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

#### Abaddon

• Saturn
• Posts: 1132
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1539 on: April 08, 2018, 01:39:37 PM »
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data
Lie.
and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.
Lie.
This is not a difficult concept to embrace.
Not for us, but apparently it is beyond your grasp.

The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.
And all of a sudden when pressurized, you can't spell. Face it. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any en digits and plot it first regularly and plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Is this a log or linear graph? You won't answer this simple elementary question because you are incapable of doing so.

#### Jason Thompson

• Uranus
• Posts: 1601
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1540 on: April 08, 2018, 01:40:39 PM »
Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

Are you actually serious? You can see why the shape changes: because the position of the values on the y-axis is changed. The numbers do not. It's just where they lie on an axis.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

#### Luke Pemberton

• Uranus
• Posts: 1823
• Chaos in his tin foil hat
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1541 on: April 08, 2018, 01:41:33 PM »
Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.

I thought we got past this 700 posts ago?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 01:46:32 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

#### Abaddon

• Saturn
• Posts: 1132
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1542 on: April 08, 2018, 01:43:32 PM »
Plotting on a log graph is not at all changing the data itself, just how it is plotted.

I thought we got part this 700 posts ago?
Oh we all got it, Timfinch doesn't.

#### nomuse

• Jupiter
• Posts: 859
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1543 on: April 08, 2018, 01:43:57 PM »
I'm trying to think of any graph...of any data presentation, really....that doesn't have a label clearly stating how the points are to be interpreted. I can not comprehend why anyone would think that because the index lines have a certain pattern one must leap to the conclusion that all data is to be mathematically manipulated in some form not described in the labels of the indexes.

#### nomuse

• Jupiter
• Posts: 859
##### Re: Radiation
« Reply #1544 on: April 08, 2018, 01:45:59 PM »

I am not sure my friend but you may be mentally challenged.  Conduct a minor experiment for yourself.  use any ten digits and plot it first regularly and then plot it as a log then examine the shape of the curve.  if the data was not converted then why does the shape of the graph change?

You keep using this word, "Plot." I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.