|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 2, 2011 2:31:09 GMT -4
But how could he do this? What Jarrah is lacking for a proper peer review is not data, it's a peer! Who would this be? I don't know the validity of the claim, but I think some on this forum have said that Jarrah once challenged Jay to peer review his material. How exactly in any way, shape or form is Jay Jarrah's peer? I have only earned several Associate's Degrees and I'm not certain even I would be his peer. I once used the phrase peer review in context of Jay and Jarrah. Jay was quick to remind me that he is not Jarrah's peer. Jay is a credentialed engineer, Jarrah is not. This is the part that Jarrah fails to recognise. Jarrah comments on physics, mathematics, engineering, geology, petrology, material science, solar physics, health physics, chemistry, radio communications, photography... add to the list as you wish. As far as we know he has no academic (having a community college TAFE certificate is no an academic qualification) or professional accreditation; yet professes he is an expert in these subjects while making elementary error after elementary error. I'd seriously doubt Jarrah could pass A-level physics and mathematics under exam conditions if he sat those exams tomorrow. Jarrah needs to get off his high horse, quit boasting of his proven "genius" and admit he needs an education. The irony being that once he did this, he would finally realize how wrong he's been all along and why the rest of the professional world views him as a complete twit. If Jarrah embodies the genius of man, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire. The guy showed he cannot work out a percentage. He blamed it on his software. So come on Jarrah, write up your work and have it reviewed. The offer is on the table. What are you scared off?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 29, 2011 23:15:43 GMT -4
As far as Jarrah is concerned, the old saying 'empty vessels make most noise' chimes very loudly. He's an intellectual coward hiding at his YouTube channel. If he had the courage of his convictions he'd sit in front of a panel of experts and defend his 'research'. That is what researchers across the world have to do, yet he seems to think he has the right for exemption while slandering many individuals at the same time. At the bare minimum, he'd come here, start a thread and continue that thread until it reached conclusion. The 'Grandchild' is a walking gish gallop and will never be anymore. He's a charlatan and pseudo-scientist of the lowest order. Let's face it, he can't even manage fundamental mathematics and logic; so why should anyone take him seriously.
My message to Jarrah is quite simple. Put your money where you mouth is, write up your research and have it reviewed. There is an offer on the table I believe - what are you running from?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 25, 2011 18:16:21 GMT -4
Speaking of which I seem to recall that JW, who is well known for his stance on such actions when they happen to him, was notably quiet when the cronies were having at svector. Indeed the most laughable instance I encountered was greenmagoos telling me he felt svector was "mean". Yes. It is a bit like selective hearing.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 25, 2011 1:16:14 GMT -4
Not only is the A.D.D. Aussie completely wrong about the moon landings - he's completely unoriginal as well. In fairness svector, while I and others find the accusation that Jarrah and his cronies threw at you repugnant, you don't know that he has ADD.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 21, 2011 16:56:48 GMT -4
I'll be watching the DVDs tomorrow (like I have every July 20th since I got the DVDs). Are those DVDs from Spacecraft?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 21, 2011 15:49:26 GMT -4
Naturally it's hosted by aulis.com (David Percy). The very mention of that name makes my blood boil.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 20, 2011 14:30:05 GMT -4
He also simply refused to give the specific reference when asked. He referred me to the MIT navigational manual, but could or would not direct me to the relevant page for his claim despite a direct request to do so. I've not been involved with this forum for long, nor the subject material. I have noted from BAUT and other forums that the HBs enter into gish gallop tactics, as well as evasion when pressed with real science. FD's post were another example of their dishonest debating. The IMBd is a good example of how this was dealt with by Jay. Jay simply did not concede ground until the first point was discussed in full. Of course, the first point was never answered properly, and sticking to one's guns shows how ignorant the HBer is. I once asked an HB if he was so confident about his argument, then why not present it here. He said that when HBs answer questions here they are not accepted, so the forum does not allow honest debate. What he really meant to say was when HBs answer questions and they have no numercial basis, they are pressed harder to provide real science. The answer to a question here is not subjective and relies proving the claim with a good deal of science and engineering. I wish the HBs would understand that you cannot handwave at radiation or orbital mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 20, 2011 14:17:58 GMT -4
:-) Actually, I once shared that misconception too. I think my lecturer had the same misconception too. The permittivity of a material is described by a complex and real part. In the case of water, the complex part increases in the microwave region. I tacitly recall my lecturer saying that that microwaves are used for this very reason, since the water dipole oscillation is resonant at those microwave frequencies. Given the nature of the dielectric function, the displacement field increases in the microwave region, so that the EM field will polarise water deeper in your food, and therefore cook it on the inside too. Speaking of which, there goes my microwave.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 17:39:47 GMT -4
And just to add a few more: STEREO-A and -B are in separate solar orbits after a complicated (and IMHO rather impressive) application of orbital mechanics involving the moon. It's all explained at this link here, along with some QuickTime movies. stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/orbit.shtml
|
|
|
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 lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 14:36:10 GMT -4
It was history for British TV. This from a wiki link: The actual night of the moon landings on 20/21 July was also historic for British TV, as it was the first ever all-night broadcast on British television, with both BBC1 and ITV remaining on air for 11 hours from 11.30 p.m. (20 July) to 10.30 a.m. (21 July). Neil Armstrong stepped on to the surface of the moon at 3:56 a.m. British time. His comments were interspersed with commentary from James Burke, often to fill in the silences.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 13:55:21 GMT -4
He did correspond privately with me a few times prior to coming here. His questions were typically of the form, "Jarrah said this, but I'm not sure that's right." I corrected him, and he seemed to accept the correction. That sound you can hear... that's the sound of Jay driving a stake deep into Jarrah's heart (metaphorically speaking). Mwuuuuhahahahaha.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 4:10:40 GMT -4
I refer to hoax proponents by their last names, and not unkindly; it's academic tradition. It is usually applied to those who achieve greatness. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac, Rutherford, Oppenheimer, Feynmann are all examples. Are you happy with that Windley? It is for this reason that I refuse to call Ralph Rene by his second name, the title which he preferred. Ralph was a man who could not understand how a single caterpillar could eat so much food, so I refuse to address him in a way that holds him in reverence.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 18, 2011 16:21:40 GMT -4
It sounds like he’s not attracting a big following, which is good. Unfortunately there will always be some who fall in with bad company, such poor misguided Vincent. As long as Jarrah stays at YouTube and keeps making a fool of himself, the damage he causes will hopefully be minimal. I'm ambivalent. I also feel that while he stays at YouTube, he'll cater for his audience. I also feel that his arguments warrant addressing. The reason I feel this way is that Kaysing was suitably vague. Jarrah has tried to place a veneer over Kaysing's ramblings, and has really exposed the absurdity of the hoax theory. He has also managed to score that many own goals with his science, he's done a lot of damage to the thing he holds so highly.
|
|