Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 367050 times)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #960 on: April 03, 2018, 03:19:42 PM »
If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.

...an finally realise there is a FILL button in Excel that fills in cells with the same formula rather than doing a cell corner drag.  :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 timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #961 on: April 03, 2018, 03:21:05 PM »
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
Sycophants like listening to the sound of their own voices don't they.  Your arguments are without substance so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #962 on: April 03, 2018, 03:21:12 PM »
Naw. I give him full points for staying on topic. And staying polite. Addressing questions in a meaningful way, not so much, but, hey, the average hoaxie sets a pretty low bar.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #963 on: April 03, 2018, 03:26:03 PM »
Your arguments are without substance...

In whose opinion?  Pointing out all the things you got wrong, from our position of relevant expertise, is usually considered a strong argument.

Quote
...so your only recourse is to expel the one who sings out of tune with the other sheeple?

Odd that you would pick an analogy where conformity is pretty much the idea.  Has it occurred to you that simply being in the minority or simply thinking differently is not inherently better?  You seem really wrapped up in notions of conformity and groupthink, and you aren't paying attention to whether you really actually know what the facts are.  You seem almost obsessed with making sure people see you as a right thinker, not whether you actually have the right answer.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #964 on: April 03, 2018, 03:26:16 PM »
Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

You actually think you need to take logs to scale the axis, really, really? That's what you think a log scale is? really? Honestly? Really? Please don't tell me you think you take logs to make a log scale. Tell you what, you take log10 of the following numbers

1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Then compute these exponents (not exponentials).

106
105
104
103
102
101
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4

Then you might see the relationship between log10 and the reason for calling it a log scale.
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 Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #965 on: April 03, 2018, 03:26:23 PM »
Luke, Luke, Luke....  Now deep in your heart you know that each mark in a grid represents a tenth of that grid.  Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.

Once again, there is no grid on that graph. Look especially at the position of the '100' mark in relation to what you think is the grid.

Quote
If they are spaced as a log function then it is a logarithmic scale.  Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

They are spaced as a log function. When each marked equidistant point on the axis is 10x greater than the one before it's a log10 scale. That's fundamental.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 03:30:20 PM by Jason Thompson »
"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

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #966 on: April 03, 2018, 03:29:48 PM »
The fact remains, however, that you still can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum...
"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

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #967 on: April 03, 2018, 03:32:03 PM »
Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.

The grid is equidistant in length, but then aren't most graphs scaled this way? The distance (of numerical difference) between the numbers are not equidistant are they. The difference between numbers increases by a factor of 10 each time. That's why it is log scaled, using a log10 function.
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 JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #968 on: April 03, 2018, 03:33:00 PM »
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.  I am not sure you have the right stuff.

This is interesting.  When other people talk about their training and qualifications, you dismiss it as nothing more than pretention.  But when we turn the scenario around, all of a sudden proper training and experience matter.  Yes, we're all familiar with the stringent requirements of service aboard a nuclear-powered warship.  And we're glad they're that way.  The point I made is that you have a double standard.  In your mind you're the only one whose expertise counts, whether it has a suitable basis or not.  In your fantasy world, rocket science doesn't have stringent requirements or qualifications, nor risk substantial failure.  Did you know that engineers are legally liable for the correctness of their mathematical reasoning?  Are you willing to risk that sort of consequence if you were wrong on your radiation data?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #969 on: April 03, 2018, 03:33:20 PM »
The fact remains, however, that you still can't tell the difference between an average and a minimum...

I'll add to that... and come here making the claim that the CRaTER data does not fall below a threshold, because you cannot interpret a log scale or examine data.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 03:36:13 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 timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #970 on: April 03, 2018, 03:36:27 PM »
Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?

You actually think you need to take logs to scale the axis, really, really? That's what you think a log scale is? really? Honestly? Really? Please don't tell me you think you take logs to make a log scale. Tell you what, you take log10 of the following numbers

1 000 000
100 000
10 000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Then compute these exponents (not exponentials).

106
105
104
103
102
101
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4

Then you might see the relationship between log10 and the reason for calling it a log scale.
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Radiation
« Reply #971 on: April 03, 2018, 03:39:18 PM »
The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Which is EXACTLY what that graph is. It just doesn't show the intermediate tick marks, for clarity!

See these two graphs? One generated by CRaTER (on the left) and one created by Luke. Luke's graph only shows the data for detector 1, which is the dark blue line on the CRaTER graph.

See how they are basically exactly the same? How the heights of the peaks is the same on both charts, on the logarithmic scale? The only difference is the labels, and the fact the one has the axis in centigrays per day and one in milligrays per day, so there is a factor of 10 difference. Both are logarithmic plots.



Can you really not see that the difference between 104 and 103 is bigger than the difference between 103 and 102? Or do you think that the gap between 10,000 and 1,000 is the same as the gap between 1,000 and 100? Or between 0.1 and 0.01?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 03:43:30 PM by Rob48 »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #972 on: April 03, 2018, 03:41:06 PM »
I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

TIm, in your own examples of log scales you can see that each set of decreasing divisions is repeated, and the difference between the lowest and highest is a 10x multiplication. The CraTer graph does not include the decreasing spacers between the major tick markes because they are not necessary.

Again, plot the data in Excel and give it the command to plot on a logarithmic axis and see what you get when you don't include the minor gridlines.
"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

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #973 on: April 03, 2018, 03:42:34 PM »
For that matter plot the GCR on a linear scale. It doesn't matter. The numbers clearly go below what you call the minimum.
"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

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #974 on: April 03, 2018, 03:42:51 PM »

I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant

Which one - the Thresher?  And if you were ever the EDO, I pity the poor mugs under you at what must have been an extremely short stint.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin