|
Post by twik on Jul 14, 2011 11:01:08 GMT -4
Jarrah White isn't a joke. He has several followers and through the hoax community I've become friends with him. Whether he shares your beliefs he's a very cool person. If that is a real email from White to Windley, Jarrah has matured a lot.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 14, 2011 11:25:47 GMT -4
Jarrah White isn't a joke. He has several followers ... Marshall Applewhite had a lot of followers too. Convincing people to go along with something preposterous doesn't make one's claims or beliefs valid. (edit grammar)
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 14, 2011 14:38:35 GMT -4
I have probably followed Jarrah more than most here... Vincent, here's a list that illustrates Jarrah's scientific calibre, and I add that most of this is from memory. I'm sure there is more: Film speedJarrah contends that the Apollo film was Earth footage, slowed down to 50% playback speed. He claims that when the footage is sped up, the film looks like a man in Earth gravity. To show this he added 50% to the orginal 100% film speed (100% + 50% = 150%). He should have added 100% to restore the original speed (100% + 100& = 200%). He blamed it on his software. The mistake was software independent. His math was wrong. His mistake meant he had increased the film speed to 150% of the original speed. To correct his error back pedalled a full mile, and claimed that the film was slowed to 67% original speed (67% of 150% is 100%). To prove this, he took the original Apollo footage, sped it up to 150%, rendered this sped up footage into a new video, and then slowed it down to 67% the original speed. He then compared the slowed down rendered footage with the original footage and showed they were the same, thus proving that the Apollo footage was Earth. His argument was circular. He has been told this by various people, but he is too dishonest to give up the game and admit he has no proof. Laws of motionHe contends that rocks on the moon can be scattered with 216 times more force than rocks on the Earth for the same exhaust gas pressure. Ignoring all his other assumptions that make his case ludicrous, he applied the exhaust gas to a moon rock with 36 times more area that a rock on Earth. When he produced this argument, he did so by using static equilibrium conditions, so he was no scattering anything in the first place. He used the wrong laws of motion to derive his result. He argued that two objects falling from the same height can hit the ground at different times. What he forgot was that one of the objects had already been in freefall. He failed to understand Galileo’s law for falling objects. He claimed that the CM could have been put in a polar orbit above the arctic circle, turning tight laps around the pole. When it was pointed out that this would require a huge amount of fuel he claimed it was a ruse to trick his opponents. Material scienceHe used a coarse grain regolith simulant during an attempt to prove that Buzz Aldrin could not have formed foot prints in dry soil. He declares that footprints cannot be formed in dry material. At the same time, he claims that coarse dry sand was used on the ‘moon set’ to simulate ballistic flight. He represented silicon dioxide as a triatomic gas. Competent scientists do not make such mistakes when talking about their field. He blamed this on his friend. He uses chemical composition data to ‘prove’ that lunar rocks are the same as Earth rocks, and therefore faked. He should use crystallographic data in tandem to understand the differences. He claims that the discovery of Hapkeite in a lunar meteorite proves that the lunar regolith is of Earth origin, since the authors of the paper declare that Hapkeite is probably more abundant in the lunar soil than previously thought. Forgetting the two key points made in the paper by the authors; relative to the other heavy elements, gold is abundant in the Earth’s crust. It does not mean it is commonly found. He reads tirelessly from papers on lunar geology, and how the moon rocks are fakes, but does not seem to understand what the term oxidation means. He thinks it is simply the formation of oxide layers. It is not. It has a specific meaning in chemistry, and it explains many of the things that Jarrah does not understand. RadiationThese are the things that I can think of off the top of my head: - When computing the fraction of bremsstrahlung radiation produced by particles of known energy, he equated a dimensionless quantity to an energy and derived the wrong result.
- He fails to understand the difference between CME driven solar proton events and impulsive flare events.
- He claims that solar flares are isotropic events. They are not.
- When asked to list dangerous secondary particles, he included neutrinos in the list.
- He claims a correlation between H-alpha flares and protons events.
- He claims that electrons in the van Allen belts will fragment. He does not understand the difference between leptons and hadrons.
- He claims that aluminium is not a good radiation shield because it causes fragmentation of particles. He needs to go back and check the literature, since he is very confused on this point.
- He claims the CM was an unshielded craft. His expectation is that lead is required to shield the astronauts. Lead is a poor shielder against particle radiation. Again, he needs to check the literature.
- He claims that x-rays from a solar flare event are as harmful as protons from solar proton events. They are not, for several reasons. One, they are predominantly soft X-rays, and do not penetrate far. Secondly, they do not deliver large amounts of energy since the mechanisms that produce them are short lived (depending on flare mechanism) and the energy density is low.
I have no idea where to start with his errors in health physics. Just to say he does not account for BFO in his dose calculations, nor does he account for integrated protons fluxes. People who know what they talk about do not make the mistakes above. I am going to continue this when I have time, unless other members of the forum have objections. We still have photography, LRO, LRRR, communications and rocketry to cover. It is a catalouge of errors.
|
|
|
Post by coelacanth on Jul 14, 2011 15:30:02 GMT -4
His mistake meant he had increased the film speed to 150% of the original speed. To correct his error back pedalled a full mile, and claimed that the film was slowed to 67% original speed (67% of 150% is 100%). To prove this, he took the original Apollo footage, sped it up to 150%, rendered this sped up footage into a new video, and then slowed it down to 67% the original speed. He then compared the slowed down rendered footage with the original footage and showed they were the same, thus proving that the Apollo footage was Earth. His argument was circular. He has been told this by various people, but he is too dishonest to give up the game and admit he has no proof. So you can prove a video is fake by speeding it up, and then slowing it down again, and showing that it matches the original? I've got to talk to my attorney about this one. Without that videotape, they've got nothing on me!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 14, 2011 15:40:03 GMT -4
And now I'm hearing Chico Marx in my head.
GROUCHO: I used to know a man named Signor Ravelli.
CHICO: I am Signor Ravelli.
GROUCHO: You are Signor Ravelli?
CHICO: I am Signor Ravelli.
GROUCHO: Well, I still insist there is a resemblance.
CHICO: That's funny. He thinks I look alike.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 14, 2011 16:42:34 GMT -4
I have probably followed Jarrah more than most here... That is a good summary. Your pain and sacrifice are appreciated by all.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 14, 2011 19:18:02 GMT -4
I have probably followed Jarrah more than most here... That is a good summary. Your pain and sacrifice are appreciated by all. Yes, when words fail, emoticons come in very handy.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 15, 2011 19:52:24 GMT -4
Well since Vincent does not want to finish what he has started; photography, LRO, LRRR, communications and rocketry can wait for another time.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 18, 2011 19:54:10 GMT -4
... I think he got the message about the correlation between H-alpha flares and proton events. He simply went away and devised a new argument to cover up his error ridden tracks. Protecting the Astronauts from particle radiation has been explained ad nauseum. I'm surprised that even someone like Jarrah even brings it up any more. What I am ignorant of, and hoping some on here can educate me on, is the protection needed and implemented during Apollo for the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (Gamma, X-ray, Micro?). I'm guessing that the levels aren't as high as Hoaxers mistakenly believe, but was any type of additional shielding added to the CSM for these particular types of threats, or was the outer hull sufficient enough?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 19, 2011 7:31:59 GMT -4
Jarrah White isn't a joke. He has several followers and through the hoax community I've become friends with him.. In other words, he happens to share your beliefs...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 15:42:09 GMT -4
What I am ignorant of, and hoping some on here can educate me on, is the protection needed and implemented during Apollo for the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (Gamma, X-ray, Micro?). I'm guessing that the levels aren't as high as Hoaxers mistakenly believe, but was any type of additional shielding added to the CSM for these particular types of threats, or was the outer hull sufficient enough? Gamma would not have been attenuated 'significantly' by the CM or spacesuits, so there was minimal protection from gamma sources. There are many sources of gamma in cislunar space. The primary sources are due to: - High energy particles impacting on matter (secondary radiation).
- Gamma bursts during the impulsive phase of solar flares.
- Distant objects such as supernova
However, none of these sources produce an appreciable gamma flux. So while little protection was afforded, the overall dose from gamma was negligible during the mission time. HBs like to cite space swimming with killer gamma, yet seem to forget that astronauts aboard the ISS are afforded little protection from gamma, and spend a much greater time in space that the Apollo astronauts. X-rays are generally produced by the same sources described above, and are divided into two classes: soft and hard x-rays. Soft x-ray are produced by solar flares, and were attenuated considerably by the CM (at least at longer wavelengths). Solar flares also produce hard x-rays, and these would have been attenuated less so by the CM. However, the x-ray fluxes produced by solar flare events are not appreciable, nor are they long in duration. Solar flares produce x-rays during flare build up and the impulsive phase. The hard x-ray spectra are generally produced during the impulsive phase when magnetic reconnection occurs. However, the x-rays are produced in a short burst. The time can be as short as a few minutes to several tens of minutes, and the x-ray flux decays with time. X-rays are also produced by bremsstrahlung. When charged particles interact with atomic nuclei they lose energy via the electromagnetic force, and radiate EM radiation as x-rays. Bremsstrahlung is quite complex, since it depends on material and particle energy. Suffice to say that the main problem from secondary x-rays would have been as the CM traversed the van Allen belts and was exposed to electrons. However, a large proportion of electrons would have been below the energy for significant bremsstrahlung yield. Given that the materials used to construct the CM were low atomic number, secondary x-rays would have been attenuated readily. This is because x-ray production would be a broad spectrum with no characteristic spectral lines. As for microwaves, there are only a problem when they correspond to the resonance frequency of water in your body. You're surrounded by them all the time. The microwave spectrum is very broad, so don't associate microwaves with the heating properties of your microwave oven. I seriously doubt they would have been an issue in terms of biological protection. However, I'll leave it to an engineer to discuss the need to harden the CM. I simply do not have enough knowledge in that domain. That's a very quick overview. If anyone wants to correct or add then feel free.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 19, 2011 20:08:57 GMT -4
From a strictly layman's perspective I, noting the effect thin aluminium foil has on microwaves tuned to heat water (in my microwave oven) and also the principally aluminium superstructure of the CM and the "tinfoil" outer shell of the LM, would not be overly troubled by microwaves in space were I travelling in such a vehicle. But what do I know? I keep putting foil-covered food in an oven and coming up with frozen dinners.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 19, 2011 20:26:31 GMT -4
As for microwaves, there are only a problem when they correspond to the resonance frequency of water in your body. Radio frequency transmitters are controlled for health & safety reasons regardless of frequency. The limits do vary; as I recall, the lowest limits are in the UHF range where the wavelengths are comparable to the dimensions of the human body. It is a common misconception that microwave ovens work at the resonance frequency of water. The vast majority operate at 2450 MHz in an "ISM" (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band shared with 802.11g WiFi, Bluetooth, amateur radio and military radars. This is not one of water's resonances; if it were, the energy would just burn the surface and barely penetrate the food. Microwave ovens work because water is a polar molecule. The hydrogen-oxygen bonds are at an angle that effectively put a small positive charge on one side and an equal and opposite negative charge on the other. When exposed to a RF field, this dipole moment forces it to follow the rapidly reversing electric field. It absorbs energy and heats up. This will happen at any frequency. Microwaves, like all forms of radio, are non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. As far as we know, non-ionizing radiation cannot cause biological harm unless it is strong enough to cause localized heating. This is the basis of the safety regulations. Many studies have been done -- and continue to be done -- looking for biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation apart from simple heating. The vast majority of these studies are simply negative. Occasionally one finds a small effect, the meaning of which is unclear except to the press eager to trumpet any "proof" that cell phones will rot your brain. The best we can say right now is the following: 1. Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation strong enough to cause significant heating is unquestionably dangerous. Fortunately this effect is localized to high power transmitters and is easily mitigated with interlocks, shields, fences and other barriers. Every microwave oven has an interlock to turn off the magnetron when the door is opened. If a microwave oven could be operated with the door open, it would be very dangerous to anyone nearby. 2. Any harmful effects from non-ionizing radiation too weak to cause heating must be quite small if they exist at all. Otherwise they would have certainly stood out in the many studies conducted so far.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 20, 2011 3:43:21 GMT -4
The conductive metal structures of the Apollo spacecraft shielded its occupants from radio frequency fields. The effectiveness of such a shield depends on the wavelength of the radio signal, the size and shape of any nonconductive openings like windows, and the nature of the door seals. Long wavelengths are blocked by small openings. That's why microwave oven windows always include a metal screen with lots of little holes perhaps 1 mm in diameter, small compared to the 13 cm (2450 MHz) operating wavelength of the magnetron. Visible light has wavelengths in the 600 nanometer range, far smaller than 1 mm so you can still see through the screen.
The highest average RF field strengths generated by Apollo spacecraft undoubtedly came from the high-gain S-band antennas: the 4-dish array on the base of the SM and the steerable antenna on the LM. They act like searchlight reflectors, concentrating the transmitter power in a single direction, usually toward the earth.
The Apollo (and Shuttle) S-band space-to-earth frequencies were about 2280 MHz, just below modern microwave ovens. A microwave oven magnetron typically generates 800-1100 W. The Apollo spacecraft transmitters generated about 20 W.
An astronaut on EVA probably saw higher field strengths from the S-band omni antennas simply because they cover an entire hemisphere, like a light bulb without a reflector. But the field strength would be correspondingly lower for the same reason.
The VHF transmitters all used omnidirectional antennas and a few watts of power. The highest field strengths would be encountered by the astronauts during EVA from the whip antennas on the PLSS/OPS. I think they transmitted a couple of watts each, about the same as a two-way "walkie talkie" except that the PLSS transmitters operated continuously.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 20, 2011 4:04:23 GMT -4
It is a common misconception that microwave ovens work at the resonance frequency of water. The vast majority operate at 2450 MHz in an "ISM" (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band shared with 802.11g WiFi, Bluetooth, amateur radio and military radars. This is not one of water's resonances; if it were, the energy would just burn the surface and barely penetrate the food I sit corrected. Thank you. My 25 lectures in dielectric properties of materials are hazy. I do remember the lecturer drawing up a reponse function for water dipoles as a function of EM frequency, and there was a peak at 2450 MHz. You have driven me to go and look at some old notes and correct my flagging memory. Thanks. Expect a five part video series of my error soon. 50 minutes of well poisoning, and 2 minutes of pointing out my error and the correct explanation; and how any high school student would have known the actual reason... blah blah blah.
|
|