Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 849

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

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    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?
    It is a lie that I do not accept facts. I accept that there is radiation in space! I accept the amount of radiation that was measured during the Apollo missions. I accept other measurements of radiation. I accept the overwhelming body of facts that that man has walked and driven on the Moon.

    I am here to see if you have anything other than imagination to back up your claims. The answer you have given is no and you seem want to do nothing about this gap: I have done no calculations and see no reason to

    P.S. You have the claim. It is up to you to provide the evidence to back up your claim. So I will spilt my question into easier parts:
    A. Give your source(s) for the radiation dosages of the Apollo astronauts while they were in the Van Allen belt.
    B. Give your source(s) for the radiation levels of the Van Allen belt along the flight paths of the Apollo missions.
    C. Give your source(s) for the amount of radiation shielding provided by the Apollo spacecraft.
    If you doe not want to cover all of the missions then select 1.
    What about B - C means that A is impossible?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 01:16 AM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    In all honesty, just to appease the masses, I would provide some calculations but the problem with it is NASA does not provide unshielded radiation readings so I would have to reverse engineer the posted doses into unshielded radiation and then show calculations for shielding and biological effects only to arrive right back where I started. It seems so wasteful don't you think?
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 01:26 AM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is a lie that I do not accept facts. I accept that there is radiation in space! I accept the amount of radiation that was measured during the Apollo missions. I accept other measurements of radiation. I accept the overwhelming body of facts that that man has walked and driven on the Moon.

    I am here to see if you have anything other than imagination to back up your claims. The answer you have given is no and seeming you want to do nothing about this gap: I have done no calculations and see no reason to
    It seems you are at an impasse. On one hand NASA tells you background radiation is .24 mgy/day and that the Apollo received ,22 mgy/day. One has to decide. Can Aluminum shield the high proton radiation of GCR and do so in a manner to reduce exposure low enough to allow both a transit through the VAB and a stint on the surface of the moon or and it is a big "or" does Apollo's mission dose represent a stint in LEO. We could compare Apollo 11's mission dose with the other LEO missions to test this theory. Wait, what? We have? Sorry, it's pretty close to all the other LEO missions. Go figure.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 01:27 AM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    While we ponder the background radiation thing have you guys ever wondered about the radioactive moon dust. I could understand tasting it and smelling it and even getting it in your eyes when you didn't know it was radioactive but how do you account for that fact that all the astronauts claimed to have done so? You would think NASA would have created an airlock so they could disrobe and clean away the radioactive dust before entering into the living quarters wouldn't you? That is the way re rolled in the Nuclear Navy way back in the seventies and even the sixties.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 05:36 PM.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    On one hand NASA tells you background radiation is .24 mgy/day and that the Apollo received ,22 mgy/day.
    You do not give sources.

    FYI:
    The extract you attached from Apollo Experience Report - Protection from Radiation (PDF) contains the average dose rates
    1. from cosmic ray fluxes
    2. spilt between the time in cislunar space and on the lunar surface.

    Any numbers derived from there are totally irrelevant to the Van Allen belt radiation during a traverse of its weakest region over a period of hours. The document does have a section on the Van Allen belt with no radiation levels given.

    You may want to actually read Clavius radiation and the van allen belts article. The format is not great but the facts are there, e.g. the spacecraft design including radiation shielding so that external radion levels that that are greater than the dosimeter reading is obviously expected.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,652

    Not At All Wasteful: This Is A Science Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    In all honesty, just to appease the masses, I would provide some calculations but the problem with it is NASA does not provide unshielded radiation readings so I would have to reverse engineer the posted doses into unshielded radiation and then show calculations for shielding and biological effects only to arrive right back where I started. It seems so wasteful don't you think?
    I have reviewed this entire thread and have not seen a single calculation. Please supply us with something other than unsupported asserions.

    Please give refrerences for your data.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2018-Apr-24 at 01:54 AM. Reason: typos

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Consider this also. The Mars mission detectors were incased inside a ship that had shielding ranging from 10 gm/cm^2 to 100 gm/cm^2 to test the effects on the flesh simulating detectors. This is far more shielding than any NASA craft to date and in spite of all that shielding it recorded a GCR level of >300 microgray/day. That is amazing don't you think?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MSL-RAD data.png 
Views:	33 
Size:	131.2 KB 
ID:	23172

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    While we ponder the background radiation thing have you guys ever wondered about the radioactive moon dust.
    Uranium-Thorium-Lead Isotope Relations in Lunar Materials
    The lead isotopic compositions and uranium, thorium, and lead concentrations have been measured on six samples of material from the Sea of Tranquillity. The leads are moderately to very radiogenic; the initial lead concentrations are very low; the uranium and thorium levels are 0.26 to 0.88 and 0.87 to 3.35 parts per million, respectively. The Th/U ratios cluster about a 3.6 value. Apparent ages calculated for four rocks are 4.1 to 4.2 ◊ 109 years. Dust and breccia yield apparent ages of 4.60 to 4.63 ◊ 109 years. The uranium-lead ages are concordant, or nearly so, in all cases. The lunar surface is an ancient region with an extended record of events in the early history of the solar system. The discrepancy between the rock ages and dust ages poses a fundamental question about rock genesis on the moon.
    (my emphasis added). N.B. "radiogenic" means produced by radioactivity.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    The Mars ...
    It is amazing that he thinks that
    • a years long mission to Mars and its surface (this is a Rover instrument) is comparable to the week long missions to the Moon,
    • an unattributed attachment is a source,
    • an argument from incredibility is valid,
    • Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) is comparable to galactic cosmic rays in interplanetary space.


    This is the Mars Science Laboratory - no mention of "flesh simulating detectors"! What he means the single "plastic scintillator E (tissue equivalent)" in his attachment. The MSL instrument involved is the Radiation assessment detector mounted on the Rover but active during transit to Mars.

    The paper he neglects to cite is Variations of dose rate observed by MSL/RAD in transit to Mars (PDF)
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 02:28 AM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Uranium-Thorium-Lead Isotope Relations in Lunar Materials

    (my emphasis added). N.B. "radiogenic" means produced by radioactivity.
    I was a trained radiation worker but no expert by any means but I am sure that incident GCR radiation of the surface of the moon produces a neutron flux that produces alpha decay in the moon dust. I might be mistaken but I think this is correct. But what do I know? Maybe the only source of radiation is from the natural decay of Thorium and Uranium. I do know in the Navy we were very cautious around alpha contamination. We would have never breathe alpha contaminated dust.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 02:34 AM.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is amazing that you think a years long mission to Mars is comparable to the week long missions to the Moon and that an unattributed attachment is a source!
    So how much of this is another fantasy ....
    This is the Mars Science Laboratory - no mention of "flesh simulating detectors"!
    Did you not note those readings were in micrograys/day. Did that little fact slip past otherwise eagle like eyes?

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,714
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    In all honesty, just to appease the masses,
    What do you mean by "to appease the masses"? As far as I can tell there are a number of posters here that are asking you questions, but there is no mass of people outside.
    As above, so below

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Did you not note those readings were in micrograys/day. Did that little fact slip past otherwise eagle like eyes?
    Did the ignorance in your post, escape your eyes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is amazing that he thinks that
    • a years long mission to Mars and its surface (this is a Rover instrument) is comparable to the week long missions to the Moon,
    • an unattributed attachment is a source,
    • an argument from incredibility is valid,
    • Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) is comparable to galactic cosmic rays in interplanetary space.
    That paper on page 2 has 461 microG/day for detector E and during the few SEP events "as high as > 10,000 microG/day". That higher number than around the Earth raised doubts about astronauts going to Mars.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 02:44 AM.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    What do you mean by "to appease the masses"? As far as I can tell there are a number of posters here that are asking you questions, but there is no mass of people outside.
    Whatever, dude...

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Did the ignorance in your post, escape your eyes?

    That paper on page 2 has 461 microG/day for detector E and during the few SEP events "as high as > 10,000 microG/day". That higher number than around the Earth raised doubts about astronauts going to Mars.
    I am sure you are making a salient point but it eludes me. State it in a manner that my response is obvious.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    , RAD measured a mix of primary and
    secondary particles. The latter are produced by primary particles
    via nuclear or electromagnetic interactions as they traverse the
    spacecraft. A simplified shielding model of the spacecraft developed
    at JPL has been be used to calculate the shielding distribution
    as seen by RAD, which is mounted to the top deck of the
    rover (Zeitlin et al. 2013). Shielding around the RAD instrument
    during cruise was complex: most of the solid angle was lightly
    shielded with a column density smaller than 10 g/cm2
    , while the
    rest was broadly distributed over a range of depths up to about
    100 g/cm2
    .
    RAD measures dose in two detectors: the silicon detector B
    and the plastic scintillator E (Hassler et al. 2012). The latter has
    a composition similar to that of human tissue and is also more
    sensitive to neutrons than silicon detectors.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06631.pdf

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I am not feeling the shock and awe that I expected when you guys realized that what I say is true. I thought there would pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth and maybe even a few expletives deletives but never silence. Did everybody faint? Is that it?

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am sure you are making a salient point but it eludes me.
    My point is a post containing ignorance, etc. is ignorant, etc.
    24 April 2018 TimFinch: The ignorance in a Mars mission post: a years long mission to Mars is not comparable to the week long missions to the Moon, an unattributed attachment, an argument from incredibility, Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) being compared to interplanetary galactic cosmic rays.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 03:58 AM.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    , RAD ...
    More irrelevancy. The RAD detector had shielding of varying column depths. It was mounted on top of the rover (with the rover base below it) as stated on that page. During flight there would have been other components around it. Varying depth is very obvious.
    I already fixed your first "Mars missions must be the same as Apollo missions" post: Variations of dose rate observed by MSL/RAD in transit to Mars (PDF)
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 04:02 AM.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My point is a post containing ignorance, etc. is ignorant, etc.
    24 April 2018 TimFinch: The ignorance in a Mars mission post: a years long mission to Mars is not comparable to the week long missions to the Moon, an unattributed attachment, an argument from incredibility, Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) being compared to interplanetary galactic cosmic rays.
    The data provided by MSL/Rad is applicable to cislunar space. As this data is taken and tabulated in daily dose units and as such it applies to cislunar missions as well. Try as you may it cannot be discounted
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-24 at 04:21 AM.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    More irrelevancy. The RAD detector had shielding of varying column depths. It was mounted on top of the rover (with the rover base below it) as stated on that page. During flight there would have been other components around it. Varying depth is very obvious.
    I already fixed your first "Mars missions must be the same as Apollo missions" post: Variations of dose rate observed by MSL/RAD in transit to Mars (PDF)
    The salient point is this is shielded dose readings emulating personnel exposure in deep space. It is not like they were towing these detectors dragging in space and recording naked readings.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    The data provided by MSL/Rad is applicable to cislunar space.
    Wrong for several reasons.
    24 April 2018 TimFinch: cislunar space is not interplanetary space + (probably) shielding by Earth's magnetic field + GSR vary with distance from the Sun = MSL/RAD not applicable to cislunar space.

    24 April 2018 TimFinch: The ignorance in a Mars mission post: a years long mission to Mars is not comparable to the week long missions to the Moon, an unattributed attachment, an argument from incredibility, Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) being compared to interplanetary galactic cosmic rays.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    The salient point is this is shielded dose readings emulating personnel exposure in deep space.
    The irrelevant point is still argument from ignorance or incredubility since you have no evidence about the shielding's effects. Deep space is still not cislunar space!
    The salient point is the trivial fact that this "shielded dose readings emulating personnel exposure in deep space" is only applied to personnel exposure in deep space, i.e. astronauts travelling to Mars. No one seems foolish enough to apply it to travel to the Moon and your lack of sources suggests it really is no one.

    24 April 2018 TimFinch: The ignorance in a Mars mission post: a years long mission to Mars is not comparable to the week long missions to the Moon, an unattributed attachment, an argument from incredibility, Van Allen belt radiation around Earth (his claim) being compared to interplanetary galactic cosmic rays.

    P.S.
    24 April 2018 TimFinch: What about B - C means that A is impossible?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-24 at 04:33 AM.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Earth, Mars, the Moon and the other seven planets are all within the Sun's heliosphere and are affected by solar activity or the lack therein. I am sure you want to believe it has no bearing but NASA thinks otherwise.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,785
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am not feeling the shock and awe that I expected when you guys realized that what I say is true. I thought there would pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth and maybe even a few expletives deletives but never silence. Did everybody faint? Is that it?
    That would be because even a quick dip into your threads shows that you have previously been given links to the studies showing consistent treatment of radiation doses but ignore them in favour of weak rhetorical devices. You are unconvincing - your arguments are repetitive rather than persuasive and anyone with a basic grounding in critical thinking finds it easy to dismiss what you are saying. No fainting involved.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,239
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    That should be 1 mrem/hr to 6 mrem/hr and not .6 mrem/hr.
    Why do you think it should be 6 and not 0.6?
    Do you have a reference to an errata or some other source that says this?

    1 gray = 100 rem is the conversion.
    Please provide a reference for this.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,166
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Did you not note those readings were in micrograys/day. Did that little fact slip past otherwise eagle like eyes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Did the ignorance in your post, escape your eyes?
    All,

    The sarcasm, the snappy comments, and the rudeness will stop. Now. No more warnings. From now on, they will receive infractions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    11,933
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    A few points before we start.
    A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
    1. The LEO is the lowest
    2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
    3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
    4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.
    ...
    A minor nit to pick ... On a list of four values - any four values - the second lowest is also the third highest.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why do you think it should be 6 and not 0.6?
    Do you have a reference to an errata or some other source that says this?



    Please provide a reference for this.
    I am sorry but you are right. The article claims Lunar surface radiation is .6 mrem/hr. My mistake. I thought we were talking about the upper ranges of GCR.

    Here is a radiation conversion tool that I find useful: https://www.convert-me.com/en/conver...?u=rrmrem&v=24

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,205
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    You would thing NASA would have created an airlock so they could disrobe and clean away the radioactive dust before entering into the living quarters wouldn't you?
    How much would that weigh? How much space would it take? How much rocket fuel would it require to propel it to the Moon?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Posting Permissions

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