Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 849

Thread: I'm back with a vengeance and undeniable proof of the Moon Hoax.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Regardless of what you are willing to acknowledge as an acceptable realistic value for Apollo 11 background GCR radiation levels it is too high. When you consider GCR levels are indirectly a function of solar activity and that solar activity is itself radiation you can see that overall background radiation goes up with solar activity even though GCR goes down. The average background radiation is a 100 times higher than GCR radiation alone. GCR by itself is higher than the mission dosage of Apollo 11. If you can, explain the incongruity of this.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-23 at 11:32 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,348
    The average background radiation is a 100 times higher than GCR radiation alone.
    can you provide a source for this claim?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,251
    TimFinch,

    Answer the questions asked of you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rule 13B
    You must defend your arguments and directly answer pertinent questions in a timely manner. Honestly answering "I don't know" is acceptable. Evasiveness will not be tolerated.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CraTer Data Graph of Ave daily dose.png 
Views:	65 
Size:	38.0 KB 
ID:	23170

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	02.png 
Views:	65 
Size:	91.4 KB 
ID:	23171 So the first graph shows radiation in cislunar space for the last seven years or so and this document defines GCR radiation in the Apollo area as ranging between 1mrem/hr and 6 mrem/hr.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CraTer Data Graph of Ave daily dose.png 
Views:	65 
Size:	38.0 KB 
ID:	23170
    And do not post graphs or images with no explanation as to the source of the data, your interpretation of this data, and an explanation of the relevance to the conversation.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    There is also the MSL/RAD that shows deep space radiation to be consistent with the CraTer data.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,636
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	02.png 
Views:	65 
Size:	91.4 KB 
ID:	23171 So the first graph shows radiation in cislunar space for the last seven years or so and this document defines GCR radiation in the Apollo area as ranging between 1mrem/hr and 6 mrem/hr.
    1 mrem/hr and 0.6 mrem/hr. Slight difference.
    And you do realize that grays and rem are completely different units, right? They're not even the same kind of radiation unit.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    There is also the MSL/RAD that shows deep space radiation to be consistent with the CraTer data.
    We already know that there is data on radiation levels in space. A bit of that data was collected by Apollo missions going thorough the Van Allen belts!
    The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][33]
    This is irrelevant to your still unsupported assertion that the Apollo missions could not have gone through the belts.
    Please give your calculation that the astronauts could not have received their recorded doses (would have been sick or died?), given the radiation data, flight path, flight time, shielding by the spacecraft.

    On the other hand we have the Clavius radiation and the van allen belts article showing how bad hoaxer claims about this have been.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 12:08 AM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    That should be 1 mrem/hr to 6 mrem/hr and not .6 mrem/hr. 1 gray = 100 rem is the conversion.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I do not contend that they could not have gone through the belts. I contend they could not have gone and received only .22mgy/day doing it. They could not have done it if the transit had been via the poles. If Cislunar space background radiation is greater than .22 mgy/day then it is impossible.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    There is also the MSL/RAD that shows deep space radiation to be consistent with the CraTer data.
    Although I'm sure you would like to continue ignoring Strange's post, you may not. As he has pointed out, the very source that you cite in support of your position directly contradicts it.

    I find it necessary to point out that mere repetition does not magically confer legitimacy to unsupported assertions. So here are direct questions, which you are obligated to answer:

    1) Show your calculations, with appropriate rigour (including -- especially -- the use of consistent units, which you seem to have trouble doing), that support your assertions that the astronauts could not have transited given the radiation data. Provide references, where appropriate, for the source of any raw data that you employ in your calculations.

    2) By ignoring the conclusions of the paper you yourself cited as an authoritative reference, you are implicitly denying the paper's validity. Show your calclulations -- again in appropriate detail -- that have led you to impugn those of the paper.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,636
    1 gray is not 100 rem. 1 gray of gamma radiation has a completely different equivalent in rem than 1 gray of alpha radiation. They're completely different kinds of units.

    ...and the source says what it says. 1 mrad/hr in cislunar space and 0.6 on the surface, just what you would expect from the moon itself blocking half of the radiation and scattering a fraction of what hits it back at the astronauts. You have not shown any source that supports your 6 mrad/hr claim.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So the first graph shows radiation in cislunar space for the last seven years or so and this document defines GCR radiation in the Apollo area as ranging between 1mrem/hr and 6 mrem/hr.
    The document has measured average dose rates in Apollo missions of GCR radiation as ranging between 1mrem/hr and 6 mrem/hr.

    Your source debunks you: Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
    The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a record of the lunar surface operations conducted by the six pairs of astronauts who landed on the Moon from 1969 through 1972.
    The document is Apollo Experience Report - Protection from Radiation (PDF) and you deny that the Apollo missions happened (or at least did not go into the Van Allen belts)! So how did Apollo missions measure radiation levels as in the document you provided (see Table 1) in cislunar space and the lunar surface?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 12:34 AM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    You are confusing me. I responded to Strange's question. I provide actual cislunar radiation readings taken by the CraTer mission. It requires no calculation, merely the ability to read a logarithmic graph. I provided the NASA article delineating the range of GCR readings during the Apollo era. What calculations could I add to this undeniable data from NASA itself. I didn't say it, NASA did.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    https://www.aqua-calc.com/convert/ra...amma-radiation This site seems to disagree with your assessment. Can you post your own reference that I might evaluate it?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I agree with you. What point are you trying to make?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    We already know that there is data on radiation levels in space. A bit of that data was collected by Apollo missions going thorough the Van Allen belts!


    This is irrelevant to your still unsupported assertion that the Apollo missions could not have gone through the belts.
    Please give your calculation that the astronauts could not have received their recorded doses (would have been sick or died?), given the radiation data, flight path, flight time, shielding by the spacecraft.

    On the other hand we have the Clavius radiation and the van allen belts article showing how bad hoaxer claims about this have been.
    I have made no claim that they would have gotten sick or died. Where did all that come from? My claim is simple and obvious. I claim the trip cannot be made with a mission dose less than cislunar space background radiation, whether or not you transit the VAB. or even land on the moon.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 12:29 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The document has what looks likely to be measured average dose rates probably in Apollo missions of GCR radiation as ranging between 1mrem/hr and 6 mrem/hr.

    Your source debunks you: Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
    So we can discount NASA when it says these are the values that existed during the Apollo era? What values would be acceptable to you if these do not meet your acceptability criteria?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    https://www.aqua-calc.com/convert/ra...amma-radiation This site seems to disagree with your assessment. Can you post your own reference that I might evaluate it?
    And then there is this site:https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/spaceradiation/faq/faq.cfm

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    So we can discount NASA when it says these are the values that existed during the Apollo era?
    I edited the post to point out how what you cited debunks you: This is NASA measurements of average radiation doses of Apollo astronauts during their fights.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have made no claim that they would have gotten sick or died.
    I did not say you did:
    Please give your calculation that the astronauts could not have received their recorded doses (would have been sick or died?), given the radiation data, flight path, flight time, shielding by the spacecraft.
    Read the question mark and answer the question.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    You are confusing me. I responded to Strange's question.
    That is correct. My question is not his:
    Please give your calculation that the astronauts could not have received their recorded doses, given the radiation data, flight path, flight time, shielding by the spacecraft.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I have done no calculations and see no reason to. The detectors were designed to simulate exposure behind the shielded walls of a space craft. They are coated in silicone or water to simulate actual flesh. These readings are what a person can expect to receive in that environment. These readings require no interpretation or calculations. If you simply like math then I am not sure this is the appropriate venue for that.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Once again an almost irrelevant citation. There may be hundreds of papers and web sites about Apollo missions and radiation in space. Listing every one of them will not support your assertion that the Apollo missions did not go to the Moon because of what so far is your imagination about doses in the Van Allen belts.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have done no calculations and see no reason to. The detectors were designed to simulate exposure behind the shielded walls of a space craft. They are coated in silicone or water to simulate actual flesh. These readings are what a person can expect to receive in that environment. These readings require no interpretation or calculations. If you simply like math then I am not sure this is the appropriate venue for that.
    Please show your calculations as requested repeatedly by several here. You may see no reason to, but we do. Your assertions are unpersuasive. Persuade us with calculations. Remember, in the ATM forum, the burden is on you to support your position. So far, you seem to think that mere bluster is an adequate substitute for rigour. It is not. We already know that you believe what you are saying; that is not in dispute, but neither is declaring one's belief the purpose of this forum.

    If you are incapable of doing the calculations needed to support your position, then simply say so.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Once again an almost irrelevant citation. There may be hundreds of papers and web sites about Apollo missions and radiation in space. Listing every one of them will not support your assertion that the Apollo missions did not go to the Moon because of what so far is your imagination about doses in the Van Allen belts.
    If you will not accepts facts as evidence then there is nothing I can offer you for you cannot teach the blind to see or the unwilling to believe. Why are you here?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I have done no calculations and see no reason to. ...
    The reason is to show that this is not blind denial of the Apollo mission for an imaginary reason.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Please show your calculations as requested repeatedly by several here. You may see no reason to, but we do. Your assertions are unpersuasive. Persuade us with calculations. Remember, in the ATM forum, the burden is on you to support your position. So far, you seem to think that mere bluster is an adequate substitute for rigour. It is not. We already know that you believe what you are saying; that is not in dispute, but neither is declaring one's belief the purpose of this forum.

    If you are incapable of doing the calculations needed to support your position, then simply say so.
    Nothing wrong with my math skills. This is not a math problem. There are no calculation. It is as simple as reading a meter. Do you need to do math to tell time? Look at the readings. They require to analysis. They are what they are. Relevant pertinent data. When I was in the Army we used to used this formula for calculating the amount of explosive necessary to destroy an object. P (the amount = Plenty or all you have.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Does no one have any counter data or facts? Is the only response to seek a formula. Why not provide data that shows it was considerably less than what NASA says it it is. What is wrong with that plan? I know you feel like it must to have been but that is not really pertinent in a argument of facts is it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •