Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 617033 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Radiation
« Reply #465 on: March 26, 2018, 06:30:16 PM »
Frankly, the premise here is "I know enough about radiation in space to be able to assert, without evidence, that literally every expert in every field who claims the Apollo missions must have been real in order for their job to work is either lying or mistaken."
"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

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #466 on: March 26, 2018, 06:34:58 PM »
The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.


ANd yet you are taking data from decades after Apollo and stating that the GCR levels reflected in those data must hold true for Apollo. Either it is constant enough for you to do that or it is variable, in which case why do you insist the levels must be at least what they were reorded as decades after the fact?
The only variant is your understanding of my premise.  I have been consistent all along.   Compare apples to apples.  It is simply not possible for Apollo 11's mission dosage to reflect a lunar transit.  You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.  Even faith can't produce the magic to make the math work.

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #467 on: March 26, 2018, 06:37:34 PM »
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.
"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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #468 on: March 26, 2018, 06:39:44 PM »
No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.

Fair enough.  I originally wrote "constant" and then added "essentially constant" to try to embody propositions such as the above.  However, you have not properly accounted for the ordinary effects of the solar cycle, nor for the irregularities in it.  Variation occurs in real life that is unaccounted for in your model.  As has been noted, the premise is not merely that the radiation environment for every space mission must include the GCR component.  The premise is that the measurement of that component should be a certain thing, with only limited ways in which it can vary.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #469 on: March 26, 2018, 06:40:28 PM »
You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.

If we limit the problem only to the factors you allow into the model, that might be true.  The refutation is that there are factors you don't consider.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #470 on: March 26, 2018, 06:41:40 PM »
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.

You are working your butt of to justify the deception.  Good job.  Stick to your guns as long as you can.  Truth is self evident.  It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #471 on: March 26, 2018, 06:43:45 PM »
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Yeah, that's what I do for a living.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #472 on: March 26, 2018, 06:44:34 PM »
You cannot make the math work no matter how you manipulate the factors.

If we limit the problem only to the factors you allow into the model, that might be true.  The refutation is that there are factors you don't consider.

If you can create the scenario in which you can duplicate a lunar transit with a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day then I will concede and shut up and go back to being an Industrial Maintenance Electrician with only a remote interest in space.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:47:01 PM by timfinch »

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #473 on: March 26, 2018, 06:45:29 PM »
It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Yeah, that's what I do for a living.

Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #474 on: March 26, 2018, 06:49:32 PM »
If you can create the scenario in which you can duplicate a lunar transit with a mission dosage of .22 mgy/day then I will concede and shut up and go back to being an Industrial Maintenance Electrician whit only a remote interest in space.

I have no interest in satisfying or placating you.  You have offered a line of reasoning you say makes it all but impossible for Apollo to have left LEO.  We've shown you where that line of reasoning falls short, in the form of things it doesn't consider.  That's enough for me.  Rehabilitating your argument according to the criticism it has received is entirely up to you, if you want to.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #475 on: March 26, 2018, 06:50:02 PM »
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?

What sentence did I quote?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #476 on: March 26, 2018, 06:51:47 PM »
Work your butt off to justify deceptions or make miracles?

What sentence did I quote?

The miracle of 1969 was a deception...

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #477 on: March 26, 2018, 06:51:53 PM »
So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

Quote
You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demonstrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are.  You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process. 

An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees.  Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much.  So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees.  Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time.  To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields.  So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700.  700/8 = 87.5.  Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel. 

There is no reason to expect differently from the available data.  The same goes for the Apollo missions.

You are working your butt of to justify the deception.  Good job.  Stick to your guns as long as you can.  Truth is self evident.  It will become obvious as we strive to reproduce the miracle of 1969.

Where specifically is the deception?  The truth IS self-evident - you have only a vague idea regarding the subject and draw erroneous conclusions due to that truth.  I provided a valid example of the chasm in your reasoning and you just hand wave it away.  The conclusion to be drawn from THAT is self-evident, also.
"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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #478 on: March 26, 2018, 06:53:06 PM »
The miracle of 1969 was a deception...

No, that was not the sentence I quoted.  Is this all we're going to get from you now?  Petty word games?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #479 on: March 26, 2018, 06:56:46 PM »
I have fulfilled my quota for entertaining pompous, self-righteous know-it-alls for this quarter.  I'll check back sometime next quarter to see if the light of epiphany has shined on you guys.  Be well and be vigilant.