|
Post by fm on Nov 17, 2009 14:05:40 GMT -4
And that's all we have been trying to answer, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that reality is not conforming to your limited understanding and doesn't work the way you insist we define it. Trying to answer and actually giving an answer is a big difference. So, what is the answer? How long did the Apollo missions take to go through the belts? You imply it has been answered, so please tell, me who gave the answer, and what was the answer, because I think I missed it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2009 14:14:35 GMT -4
You imply it has been answered, so please tell, me who gave the answer, and what was the answer, because I think I missed it.No, he does not imply that it has been answered. He correctly states that your expectation of what that answer should consist of -- in form and content -- is not in accordance with reality. Your question is incomplete because it fails to establish values for a set of parameters that pertain to the actual behavior of the underlying phenomena. You ignore that these parameters are necessary because you stubbornly insist on a uselessly-simplified conceptualization of the trapped radiation environment. Reality does not conform to your simplistic, Googled-up conceptualization. It has been copiously explained to you why your responses to our questions are necessary for the discussion of your questions to continue. Please supply the answers immediately and quite stalling.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2009 14:22:09 GMT -4
Trying to answer and actually giving an answer is a big difference. I will also remind you that your assertion is on the table: that Apollo took too long to traverse the trapped radiation environment. You have provided no direct case for that proposition. Your questions regarding traversal time are simply your attempt to compel someone else to provide an affirmative rebuttal to your claim. There is no such obligation, especially when you thoroughly refuse to provide a direct case. Your claim is immediately rejected for lack of substance.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 17, 2009 17:21:40 GMT -4
So, what is the answer? How long did the Apollo missions take to go through the belts? You imply it has been answered, so please tell, me who gave the answer, and what was the answer, because I think I missed it. I gave you the answer. Jay gave you the answer. Many others gave you the answer. The answer is: It depends on what you define as the boundary of the beltsYou are expecting a straightforward answer of 'it took 36.5 minutes to traverse the section of the belt that Apollo 11 passed through on its way to the Moon and in that time they were exposed to a dose of xxxxx rads/roentgens/rem'. That answer is IMPOSSIBLE to provide because the reality is that the belts are: Inclined with respect to the translunar trajectory; In motion as the spacecraft passes through them; Amorphous and lacking in a distinct boundary; Variable in intensity across their thickness and altitude; Variable in intensity and geometry depending on solar activity. Do you or do you not grasp that idea? You are claiming that Apollo spent longer in the belts than anyone says, so why are we the ones who have to prove you wrong? Why can't you prove yourself right?
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 17, 2009 19:01:23 GMT -4
So, what is the answer? How long did the Apollo missions take to go through the belts? You imply it has been answered, so please tell, me who gave the answer, and what was the answer, because I think I missed it. I gave you the answer. Jay gave you the answer. Many others gave you the answer. The answer is: It depends on what you define as the boundary of the beltsYou are expecting a straightforward answer of 'it took 36.5 minutes to traverse the section of the belt that Apollo 11 passed through on its way to the Moon and in that time they were exposed to a dose of xxxxx rads/roentgens/rem'. That answer is IMPOSSIBLE to provide because the reality is that the belts are: Inclined with respect to the translunar trajectory; In motion as the spacecraft passes through them; Amorphous and lacking in a distinct boundary; Variable in intensity across their thickness and altitude; Variable in intensity and geometry depending on solar activity. Do you or do you not grasp that idea? Ohhhh... so your answer is, you dont know! Why didnt you just say so? And if you dont know, you cant say I'm wrong either. Can you? As a matter of fact I can claim it took them 5 hours to fly through belts. Who are you to tell me different? And if anyone claims they do know, well I can say, that's impossible, you can't know. As a matter fact, it doesn't even look like NASA knows. NASA doesnt know? I would think NASA would have some idea when they estimated Apollo would be safely away from the belts, since they did everything possible to not go through them. I mean, they did think the belts were dangerous, right?? No NASA doesnt know... Either the belts were not dangerous... or, they just didnt have much understanding of the belts at that time. So wait, why would they then risk Astronauts to the moon if they couldn't figure out the dimensions and the radiation intensities of the belts? I mean, what if there was another belt, or field of radiation they weren't aware of? Who cares, NASA is made up of cowboys, not scientists. Astronaut safety? That's for those wimpy Russians. Ok we are sending Apollo at an incline to skip as much of the belts as possible. Yes but, the belts are amorphous and lacking in a distinct boundary! So how can we tell we are really missing the belts? Well, the belts are in motion as the spacecraft passes through them. Which means if they go fast left, and we go fast right, then... Yeah yeah but... the belts are variable in intensity across their thickness and altitude. So even if we go in fast, maybe we might hit a pocket of such extreme intensity that... That what? It cant be that extreme, our lasts test revealed its not THAT bad. But your forgetting that the variable intensity and geometry is depending on solar activity. Solar Activity? Isn't the Sun always active? Well it has its good and bad periods... And we are sitting in.... A bad period. Not only do you guys not know, but I got a feeling many of you guys dont even want to know. Well I do want to know, and thats why I have been asking for a 3D diagram to give us a better picture of long it could take. And whatever the results, Ill thank the brave soul who puts it together
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 17, 2009 19:17:52 GMT -4
Fm, the world is not obliged to follow your naive layperson expectations of how it works. You can rail against reality all you like. You've been given data, real hard data. You've been given diagrams, in 2D and 3D. You've been given tutorials in radiation types, exposure effects and shielding methods. You have been given far more, frankly, than you should reasonably expect, but still all you have is vague assertions that somehow we're wrong and you are right.
So, where do YOU want to set the boundary of the belts at, in terms of flux density as given in a diagram you provided earlier?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2009 19:39:50 GMT -4
Ohhhh... so your answer is, you dont know!No. The answer is, "It depends on additional parameters." You stubbornly refuse to give us that further information, because it would pin you down to something you'd have to deal with. You'd rather keep the problem indeterminate so you can tap-dance around and make it seem like you're reasonable. And if you dont know, you cant say I'm wrong either. Can you?Of course we can. And we've pointed out at length the many errors you've committed, such as assuming only geodetic altitude will give you the answer you want. As a matter of fact I can claim it took them 5 hours to fly through belts.Prove it. Put up or shut up. Who are you to tell me different?A professional engineer working in aerospace, who has participated in the design of spacecraft meant to operate in and beyond the trapped radiation environment. I'm telling you that your conceptualization of the problem is too simplistic to support your claim. Who are you? How do we know you're not just some bored teenager trolling our forum? What are your exact professional and academic qualifications in astrophysics and spacecraft design? Do you dare answer that question? NASA doesnt know?NASA knows that the Apollo trajectory was successful. We've explained why. You refuse to hear it, and insist that we instead give you answers in contrived forms that correspond to your wrong and simplistic notion of the behavior of the universe. I would think NASA would have some idea...They had a very good idea. But that idea didn't come from the synthetic method you've proposed. That's the whole notion you don't get. You naively and arrogantly suppose that the method you imagine -- and the method you've constrained us and everyone to adopt -- is the primary means of determining whether the Van Allen belts were too dangerous to traverse. No NASA doesnt know...No, NASA does know. But NASA doesn't constrain themselves to your silly, ignorant methods. You are the one demanding that the problem be solved a certain way, and the results expressed in a certain form. You're just begging the question that this is how it's done in the real world. Yes but, the belts are amorphous and lacking in a distinct boundary! So how can we tell we are really missing the belts?NASA figured it out. Too bad you won't do any research on your own to determine how. And we are sitting in....A bad period.Nope, yet another common ignorant error. Conspiracy theorists try to tell you that Apollo took place in a solar max. Instead it took place during the decline into a solar minimum. Again, you don't do any homework. Not only do you guys not know, but I got a feeling many of you guys dont even want to know.False. We know, but we don't want to jump through your silly hoops that have no bearing on the real answer. And you won't answer the questions that justify those hoops. And whatever the results, Ill thank the brave soul who puts it together No, you won't. You'll just find some other reason to nit-pick it so you won't have to face the fact that everyone who is properly informed about these topics disagrees with you. You'll still keep tap-dancing, hoping no one will notice just how colossally ignorant you are about this topic.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 17, 2009 19:44:29 GMT -4
Ohhhh... so your answer is, you dont know! Why didnt you just say so? This statement is utterly wrong and everything that follows from it is therefore gibberish. The statement "It depends on what you define as the boundary of the belts" means that the answer changes depending on the precise question asked, not that there is no answer. Or, more generally, there are many answers, all correct, each of which maps to a given question. So far so obvious, I hope. Since you have singularly failed to produce (and indeed seem to gleefully exult in resisting all attempts to get one from you) a precise question, you have gotten the general answer (several times) as well as some more precise exemplar questions together with the appropriate answer for the exemplar under consideration. In slightly more mathematical terms: You have an equation with two variables; to find any one variable, you need the other first or else you can only reduce the equation to a simpler form that relates the two variables directly.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Nov 18, 2009 5:00:11 GMT -4
The problem is we could show you an answer, but you haven't shown any sign that you would actually understand it as it would be stated. You need to set a boundary at which the belt is worth considering at all.
For instance. I could show that the orbit takes them through the outer belt 1KeV zone, and takes four hours to get through.
Is that significant? No. The outer belt is mostly electrons, and it takes a 1000KeV energy level for an electron to even get through 1.5mm of aluminium, and no protons of that energy level would get through that thickness. None. Furthermore electrons below 1MeV (that's 1000 KeV) are not going to be dangerous even if they do hit you.
Do you understand why this would pose no risk? Do you understand why setting the boundary at 1KeV would be a nonsense?
Consider this an intelligence test. Please answer these questions rather than dodging them and we'll progress.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 18, 2009 9:50:17 GMT -4
So Im really curious to see what Bob B. will have for us when he is finished. Be patient, it's coming. I'm still working on some of the graphics and accompanying narrative. Another day and I should have it finished.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 18, 2009 12:29:13 GMT -4
Bob, I hope you'll be making sure that the animation is microsecond perfect to the timeline of actual events. I for one will be examining your work with the eye of an eagle. I expect no donuts used as Van Halen belts, and that the mile high electric fence is adequately shown in proporation to the ant which will represent the CSM. Also, if you could add the Lost in Space radiation belt sound effects, that would be a great help in getting it as close to reality as possible.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 18, 2009 12:30:18 GMT -4
Not only do you guys not know, but I got a feeling many of you guys dont even want to know. Well I do want to know, and thats why I have been asking for a 3D diagram to give us a better picture of long it could take. And whatever the results, Ill thank the brave soul who puts it together I've read this thread from the start, and I congradulate those of you who have tried to educate this poster on the intricacies of Lunar Trajectories, the VABs and radiation. So I wonder why, after fm cut-and-pasted this (along with just about everything else he posted): "The strongest radiation particles of all are gamma particles. This is the most common type of radiation in space"
you would be inclined to even try and educated him further. That he posted that and didn't know the absolute, basic difference between particle and wave radiation should be enough to dismiss him as more than a troll, but an ignorant buffoon.
Now, that is not an ad hominem. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to him because he's an ignorant buffoon. I've proven he's just that by virtue of that single statement, akin to someone debating advanced mathematics saying 2+2=5.
fm, your google-fu isn't nearly good enough to cover up the fact you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. No matter how much you cut-and-paste, in how many different colors.
Bob, I look forward to your project, but I fear it won't help a bit.
|
|
Sabine
Mercury
A closed mouth gathers no foot
Posts: 12
|
Post by Sabine on Nov 18, 2009 13:05:11 GMT -4
Not only do you guys not know, but I got a feeling many of you guys dont even want to know. Well I do want to know, and thats why I have been asking for a 3D diagram to give us a better picture of long it could take. And whatever the results, Ill thank the brave soul who puts it together I've read this thread from the start, and I congradulate those of you who have tried to educate this poster on the intricacies of Lunar Trajectories, the VABs and radiation. So I wonder why, after fm cut-and-pasted this (along with just about everything else he posted): "The strongest radiation particles of all are gamma particles. This is the most common type of radiation in space"
you would be inclined to even try and educated him further. That he posted that and didn't know the absolute, basic difference between particle and wave radiation should be enough to dismiss him as more than a troll, but an ignorant buffoon.
Now, that is not an ad hominem. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to him because he's an ignorant buffoon. I've proven he's just that by virtue of that single statement, akin to someone debating advanced mathematics saying 2+2=5.
fm, your google-fu isn't nearly good enough to cover up the fact you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. No matter how much you cut-and-paste, in how many different colors.
Bob, I look forward to your project, but I fear it won't help a bit. I'm going to have to park my vote right along side here, I also just finished reading this thread. I spend my days at work having people tell me over and over again that I wouldn't understand [issue not related to engineering] because I'm not an engineer. And even I, a non-engineer, get this. The sketch was great, the donut was great. So simple. You guys are so patient, but fm clearly doesn't want to learn. He's just leading you on, pretending to be open to reason. I wonder how fm pentrates the dense fabric of his clothes every morning. Seems like it would be impossible to insert a body into clothes without destroying them. Dangerous even, considering zippers... Unless... Wait a minute, I have to go try something... ... ... Yes, as it turns out, you can in fact get in and out of your clothes via the openings.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 18, 2009 13:27:44 GMT -4
So I wonder why...you would be inclined to even try and educated him further. One of the purposes of this board is to achieve a comprehensive record of moon hoax claims and the thorough discussion and rebuttal of those claims. The more of FM's questions that are answered, or shown to be meaningless, the further we are to that goal. No one can legitimately claim that FM has not been allowed his say in this discussion and we are happy to let the record of rebuttals stand to examination. Though sometimes difficult, patience with those unwittingly helping you toward your goals has its own reward.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 18, 2009 13:58:27 GMT -4
Tomblvd, Sabine, we occasionally get posters who say that they have not convinced us, because we are brainwashed, but that the lurkers know the real truth. Thank you for de-lurking long enough to admire the great work done here. Though certainly not by me. I'm another "I don't understand very much, but all of this makes it pretty transparent to me" type. Especially the doughnut. Though I refuse to believe the Van Allen Belts are glazed. Powdered, maybe, or chocolate.
|
|