Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 616675 times)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #270 on: March 25, 2018, 06:27:23 PM »
 8)

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Radiation
« Reply #271 on: March 25, 2018, 06:29:49 PM »
It has occurred to me that we are like the devoutly religious.  God himself could appear and inform people they got it all wrong and they wouldn't believe him and in the same fashion NASA could own up to the deception and we wouldn't believe them.  I admire your passion and convictions.  Thanks for this momentary diversion from the curse of boredom.
By 'we' you mean 'you' don't you? You refused to acknowledge the blindingly obvious reason why galactic cosmic rays, and specifically GCR, would not be the same, and, in fact, less, on the lunar surface compared to cis-lunar space. But, no, we have to 'impress you'. See you later, alligator.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #272 on: March 25, 2018, 06:45:33 PM »
It has occurred to me that we are like the devoutly religious.  God himself could appear and inform people they got it all wrong and they wouldn't believe him and in the same fashion NASA could own up to the deception and we wouldn't believe them.  I admire your passion and convictions.  Thanks for this momentary diversion from the curse of boredom.
By 'we' you mean 'you' don't you? You refused to acknowledge the blindingly obvious reason why galactic cosmic rays, and specifically GCR, would not be the same, and, in fact, less, on the lunar surface compared to cis-lunar space. But, no, we have to 'impress you'. See you later, alligator.

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 06:47:09 PM by timfinch »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #273 on: March 25, 2018, 07:03:54 PM »
The relevant point is the lunar orbit and surface are both at a higher radiation level than cislunar space.
No. "Radiation level" abstracts away important points referring to particle species, energy spectrum, and detection factors. Simply retreating back to simplified terms doesn't fix your claim.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #274 on: March 25, 2018, 07:09:54 PM »
Measurements taken...

To me, the mark of religious belief (as opposed to rational belief) is that religious belief just keeps repeating the believed statement in the face of facts presented to the contrary.  By my count this is the third time you've posted this same statement largely unchanged.

Quote
and potentially more dangerous -- shower...

Any time you apply the word "potentially," that means there's necessarily more discussion that would have to happen.  We're trying to have that discussion, but you keep retreating back to pidgin concepts.  By what exact mechanism would it be more dangerous?  By what criteria?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Radiation
« Reply #275 on: March 25, 2018, 07:10:39 PM »
An experiment to measure GCR is designed to measure GCR, not secondary radiation from  GCR interacting with the lunar surface. Hence the difference in dose from that specific source, which has its own specific sheilding requirements. As for it being dangerous, future moon missions, when and if they happen, will be weeks, if not months once actual outposts equivalent to at least the ISS are set up. You're going to get a much higher total dose (not to mention much more likely to run into an actually serious solar event) than on the short 'camping trips' of Apollo, which only lasted two weeks at most and spent three days on the moon.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Radiation
« Reply #276 on: March 25, 2018, 07:15:28 PM »
You do understand the difference between radiation flux and equivalent biological damage don't you?
Yes, I do.

You, on the other hand, apparently do not.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.
You do understand the difference between"potentially" and "actually" don't you?
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 timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #277 on: March 25, 2018, 07:17:09 PM »
The relevant point is the lunar orbit and surface are both at a higher radiation level than cislunar space.
No. "Radiation level" abstracts away important points referring to particle species, energy spectrum, and detection factors. Simply retreating back to simplified terms doesn't fix your claim.

I am pretty sure there was no neutron shielding on the apollo crafts so it was as or more deadly than the cosmic radiation.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #278 on: March 25, 2018, 07:30:53 PM »
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 07:40:26 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #279 on: March 25, 2018, 07:31:26 PM »
I am pretty sure there was no neutron shielding on the apollo crafts so it was as or more deadly than the cosmic radiation.

And this just repeats the error.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #280 on: March 25, 2018, 08:06:25 PM »
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.

I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 08:09:09 PM by timfinch »

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #281 on: March 25, 2018, 08:20:29 PM »
Truth be told, that is not my cup of tea.

Thankfully it is the cup of tea of several people at this forum.  If you're wondering where I was the past few hours, I was closing a show.  I also work on film productions in and around my area.  It's not how I make my living, obviously, but I have some idea of what's required to produce visual storytelling.  I've been unimpressed with any of the suggestions people have offered regarding how Apollo could have been faked this way.  There are others here who do make their living in film and stage production.  Is their opinion going to be probative, or is this one of those cases where your superior "discernment" trumps everything?

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, these are factors that apply to your theory.  You don't get to dismiss or disregard those elements of your hoax theory simply because you aren't interested in them or don't have the requisite experience to suggest plausible methods.  When you suggest the Apollo visuals were produced rather than simply captured, your disinterest works against you.

Quote
I have one interest in all of this and it is the radiation dosages of the apollo missions.  The rest of it I am content to leave to others.

But you aren't content to leave it to others.  You suggest the photos, video, and film were produced using studio production techniques without knowing whether that's a reasonable suggestion.  Your argument amounts to just speculating that it will somehow all just work out.  That's not a convincing argument.  The Apollo program encompasses a huge amount of evidence of different types from a wide variety of sources.  Focusing on one bellwether event that supposedly decides the whole question, irrespective of all the other evidence, is not convincing thinking.

I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?
But you have shown no analysis that Apollo never LEFT LEO.   Rather all you have presented is your incorrect assessment that published radiation data from those Apollo missions look low to you.  You don't have the necessary knowledge to make that assessment.   That is your problem.   You don't see it that way because "you are right and the rest of us are wrong".  Yet you can't show us the analysis and we are supposed to believe your high school approach.

ETA: Changed spelling
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 09:29:47 PM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #282 on: March 25, 2018, 08:26:23 PM »
No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #283 on: March 25, 2018, 08:30:53 PM »
I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.  I am unfortunate in that I worked for the government and observed first hand its disregard for truth and honesty.  I have no faith in what I am told.  I have complete faith in my ability to understand the things I experience.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #284 on: March 25, 2018, 08:36:04 PM »
I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.

You've been given a reason.  You just don't like it, because it means you have to abandon your fantasy of being a "discerning" person who doesn't need to actually know what he's talking about.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams