Flat Earth, are Van Allen Belts real?

One of the repeating themes of flat earth is the Apollo astronauts could not survive the trip through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Spherical earth, the existence of the belts make sense.  Large sun creating charged particles and the solar wind that gets caught in belts about the earth in earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core.

In flat earth, are the Van Allen Radiation belts a thing? If so, what creates them.  How do you rectify the belts with the size of the sun, the dome, and waters of the firmament?

I didn't even know those things existed and I have a Grandfather who's a scientist.

One of the repeating themes of flat earth is the Apollo astronauts could not survive the trip through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Spherical earth, the existence of the belts make sense.  Large sun creating charged particles and the solar wind that gets caught in belts about the earth in earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core.

In flat earth, are the Van Allen Radiation belts a thing? If so, what creates them.  How do you rectify the belts with the size of the sun, the dome, and waters of the firmament?

RE ppl say they are a thing.
FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work.

This isn't a thing FE ppl came up with. This is your own science. So you tell me.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 17, 2023, 05:31:44 AM

One of the repeating themes of flat earth is the Apollo astronauts could not survive the trip through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Spherical earth, the existence of the belts make sense.  Large sun creating charged particles and the solar wind that gets caught in belts about the earth in earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core.

In flat earth, are the Van Allen Radiation belts a thing? If so, what creates them.  How do you rectify the belts with the size of the sun, the dome, and waters of the firmament?

RE ppl say they are a thing.
FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work.

This isn't a thing FE ppl came up with. This is your own science. So you tell me.

Why would FE ppl agree that it's a thing? The Van Allen Belts were discovered by Geiger counters flown on Explorer 1 satellite (on a Jupiter C rocket), launched in January 1958, designed to study cosmic ray access to Earth.



Explorer 1 orbited with a perigee of 358 km (222 mi) and an apogee of 2,550 km (1,580 mi) having a period of 114.80 minutes, and an inclination of 33.24°


It then transmitted the data back to earth.

I thought you didn't believe in rockets getting into space and satellites. Or perhaps even not believing in space. "Space doesn't work".

So why would an FEr who doesn't believe in such things believe in the Van Allen Belts that were discovered by such things?

There's absolutely no logical reason why any radiation belt would cover a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
The story is a good story along with all the rest of the sci-fi of space and planets...but that's all it is.

The earth offers radiation throughout at all times which varies depending on the dense mass of minerals, air, water, etc.

None of it happens on any globe in a space vacuum.
A globe could not hold any atmosphere because it cannot hold a foundation of it unless someone decided to throw a big glass bubble over it.

A cell setup can offer everything we see and feel.

Instead of us walking upon a fictional globe we can walk within a cell as the bacteria we are, among so many different bacteria eating away at it until it dies.

Why would FE ppl agree that it's a thing? The Van Allen Belts were discovered by Geiger counters flown on Explorer 1 satellite (on a Jupiter C rocket), launched in January 1958, designed to study cosmic ray access to Earth.

To be fair, they were hypothesised before that
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whtrap1.html

  The trapping of particles by magnetic fields was first studied by Kristian Birkeland in Norway, starting around 1895. Birkeland aimed beams of electrons (called "cathode rays" in those days) at a magnet inside a vacuum chamber, and noted that they seemed to be channeled towards its near magnetic pole.

    Scientists in those days also wondered whether trapped particles were the cause of the mysterious "ring current" responsible for magnetic storms, but it was hard to imagine a process which created enough ions or electrons of cosmic ray energies to sustain them. Only in 1957 did S. Fred Singer (U. of Maryland) propose that the ring current may be carried by particles of much lower energies, injected somehow into trapped orbits during magnetic storms. In the following year the radiation belt was discovered--existing all the time, not just during storms--and gradually the details fell into place.
    Meanwhile in the 1950s efforts began to confine plasma in laboratory magnetic fields for producing controlled nuclear fusion, and in the process the theory of trapped particles was greatly developed and expanded.

It'd be coherent for a FEer to reject them as the observations come from what is under FET a dubious source, but accepting them just means accepting an 1890s experiment, and some mechanism for charged particles to be fired across the observed magnetic field of the Earth.

RE ppl say they are a thing.
FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work.

RE people accept their existence, due to the evidence showing they exist, and understand that they were not a problem for Apollo, but modern electronics have greater shielding requirements due to their small component size, and that the path taken will affect shielding requirements.
While I'm not entirely sure, my understanding that the plan for Artemis was to pretty much go straight through the belts, rather than up and around.

FE people then blatantly misuse that to pretend they are an insurmountable problem for space flight, pretending that nothing can go through them, and that they would affect all attempts to go to space, even to go to LEO.

Why would FE ppl agree that it's a thing?

Other than actually saying they agree, it can be a reasonable position to accept as true for the purpose of argument something the opponent has said.
i.e. accept one premise they agree with to show a different premise is impossible.
It is an attempt to show a contradiction in their position.

There's absolutely no logical reason why any radiation belt would cover a spinning globe in a space vacuum.
The story is a good story along with all the rest of the sci-fi of space and planets...but that's all it is.

Your wilful ignorance has no impact on reality.
You not wanting to accept or investigate a reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Firstly, it doesn't' cover the globe, hence the term "belt".
It isn't simply "radiation", they contain specific types of radiation, which can be grouped into a single type, charged particles.
And Earth has a magnetic field.
A charged particle moving through a magnetic field, will be accelerated by that field.
Thus the motion of the charged particles through Earth's magnetic field traps them into orbiting Earth.

So there quite clearly is a reason, a fairly simple one.
You not liking that, and wanting to strawman it doesn't change that.

None of it happens on any globe in a space vacuum.

Why? because you say so?
Again, reality doesn't care about what you want.

A globe could not hold any atmosphere because it cannot hold a foundation of it unless someone decided to throw a big glass bubble over it.

And more nonsense.
The foundation would be Earth. You don't need a bubble to have a foundation.
And the pressure gradient of the atmosphere clearly shows that it doesn't need a top.
So no, a globe could hold atmosphere, regardless of if you wanted to accept reality, and accept that gravity is holding it there, or if you want to go with your delusional BS which explains nothing with the atmosphere stacking against the foundation of Earth.

A cell setup can offer everything we see and feel.

No, it doesn't.
You are yet to provide a single example where your nonsense explains anything better than conventional science. Meanwhile, it has pointed out to you time and time again that your nonsense doesn't work, with clear explanations of why, and contradictions inside your model.
Covering Earth in a magical dome assists with nothing. If there wasn't a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, you may have a point, but there is, so no dome is needed.
Pretending Earth is flat doesn't help either.

A round Earth, with gravity, explains what is seen and felt.

Instead of us walking upon a fictional globe we can walk within a cell as the bacteria we are, among so many different bacteria eating away at it until it dies.

I'll stick to walking on the real globe, and leave your fantasy out of it.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 08:37:34 AM

Why would FE ppl agree that it's a thing? The Van Allen Belts were discovered by Geiger counters flown on Explorer 1 satellite (on a Jupiter C rocket), launched in January 1958, designed to study cosmic ray access to Earth.

To be fair, they were hypothesised before that
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whtrap1.html

Quote

  The trapping of particles by magnetic fields was first studied by Kristian Birkeland in Norway, starting around 1895. Birkeland aimed beams of electrons (called "cathode rays" in those days) at a magnet inside a vacuum chamber, and noted that they seemed to be channeled towards its near magnetic pole.

Quote

    Scientists in those days also wondered whether trapped particles were the cause of the mysterious "ring current" responsible for magnetic storms, but it was hard to imagine a process which created enough ions or electrons of cosmic ray energies to sustain them. Only in 1957 did S. Fred Singer (U. of Maryland) propose that the ring current may be carried by particles of much lower energies, injected somehow into trapped orbits during magnetic storms. In the following year the radiation belt was discovered--existing all the time, not just during storms--and gradually the details fell into place.
    Meanwhile in the 1950s efforts began to confine plasma in laboratory magnetic fields for producing controlled nuclear fusion, and in the process the theory of trapped particles was greatly developed and expanded.

It'd be coherent for a FEer to reject them as the observations come from what is under FET a dubious source, but accepting them just means accepting an 1890s experiment, and some mechanism for charged particles to be fired across the observed magnetic field of the Earth.

Hypothesized is different than detected and measured and determining the relative harm they may cause. The FE assertion (and Moon landing deniers) is that spacemen would be radiated to death, so space travel is implausible. They are not basing the assertion on an 1895 hypothesis, they are basing it on the actual detected, measured and reported existence of the VAB. At least from what I've seen. Everything I've seen from an FEr regarding the VAB has been NASA footage regarding it, disregarding all of the info from the same sources about how it was/is avoided. Never a mention of the Norwegian Kristian Birkeland.

So if you don't believe in rockets to space and, in this case, a detecting/measuring satellite, then it seems hypocritical to then say, "Well, the VAB would melt humans..."

So if you don't believe in rockets to space and, in this case, a detecting/measuring satellite, then it seems hypocritical to then say, "Well, the VAB would melt humans..."

I think there's a difference between incorporating the idea into one's own model based on the back of a scientific understanding, and using something as a counter-argument. They don't necessarily need to be based on the same thing. A FEer saying that the Van Allen Belts would kill astronauts doesn't inherently need to believe they exist - they're using it as an internal objection of the RE model. Whether they accept it is immaterial either way, unless you're denying them then it's an objection to answer. (Which, worth clarifying, I don't think it's an especially good anti-RE argument if just because plenty of people work with radiation, limited exposure isn't deadly at all)
I don't think using it in this form is hypocritical at all.
If they specifically talk about what the case is under FET, and they then appeal to the satellites, then in that instance it's certainly dubious (though it is worth saying some FEers accept satellites to a limited degree so that's one response). That's a specific subset mind you.

None of it happens on any globe in a space vacuum.
A globe could not hold any atmosphere because it cannot hold a foundation of it unless someone decided to throw a big glass bubble over it.

Vacuum doesn't "suck".  Higher pressure blows unless a force acts upon it to stabilize and stack the particles.  You know, Gravity.  Otherwise you have zero, zilch, none, less than a unicorn fart of a reason for the atmosphere the form into a gradient. 

A FEer saying that the Van Allen Belts would kill astronauts doesn't inherently need to believe they exist

I can bring up examples.  But flat earther’s explicitly state the astronauts should be dead period.

The arguments I have seen never use phrases like “the spherical earth model…”

For flat earther’s to use Van Allen Belts is hypocritical.  And wonder if it’s a mental slip where they don’t actually believe flat earth. 

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 03:09:20 PM

So if you don't believe in rockets to space and, in this case, a detecting/measuring satellite, then it seems hypocritical to then say, "Well, the VAB would melt humans..."

I think there's a difference between incorporating the idea into one's own model based on the back of a scientific understanding, and using something as a counter-argument. They don't necessarily need to be based on the same thing. A FEer saying that the Van Allen Belts would kill astronauts doesn't inherently need to believe they exist - they're using it as an internal objection of the RE model. Whether they accept it is immaterial either way, unless you're denying them then it's an objection to answer. (Which, worth clarifying, I don't think it's an especially good anti-RE argument if just because plenty of people work with radiation, limited exposure isn't deadly at all)
I don't think using it in this form is hypocritical at all.
If they specifically talk about what the case is under FET, and they then appeal to the satellites, then in that instance it's certainly dubious (though it is worth saying some FEers accept satellites to a limited degree so that's one response). That's a specific subset mind you.

I'm not sure, but I think I disagree.

The argument I've seen is VAB would kill astronauts based upon NASA sources going back to Explorer 1.
If you don't believe in space travel, rockets, satellites and such, why would you use the perceived deadliness of the VAB as yet another reason why those things don't exist, when it's very real existence was detected and measured as a potential harm only by the very things you don't believe in to begin with.

So basically you're positing the FE argument as, "If your VAB does exist as you say it does, your astronots would be greatly harmed." Of course when countered with reams of documentation as to how we figured out how to avoid such a thing, that is simply disregarded out of hand as it's all fake anyway.

It's a really fine line. But you're not looking at the context.

RE ppl say they are a thing.
FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work.

The context is, more recently, specifically, FEr's point to a video of a NASA engineer talking about the new crew capsule and how they have to solve (for the new capsule) getting it through the VAB safely. FEr's go crazy with the "have to solve" bit. "See, they never solved for it before so human space travel is implausible! Never happened! Even more so, because the earth is flat!" That's the context. You're taking it to a loftier place of a philosophical argument. That's not what is going on here.

I'm not sure, but I think I disagree.

The argument I've seen is VAB would kill astronauts based upon NASA sources going back to Explorer 1.
If you don't believe in space travel, rockets, satellites and such, why would you use the perceived deadliness of the VAB as yet another reason why those things don't exist, when it's very real existence was detected and measured as a potential harm only by the very things you don't believe in to begin with.

So basically you're positing the FE argument as, "If your VAB does exist as you say it does, your astronots would be greatly harmed." Of course when countered with reams of documentation as to how we figured out how to avoid such a thing, that is simply disregarded out of hand as it's all fake anyway.

It's a really fine line. But you're not looking at the context.

I mean, it's hard to look at context when we're talking a general case. Equally, I don't agree with taking a poor delivery of an argument and using the quality of delivery to refute the point. There have been a lot of FEers making comparable arguments a lot of times.
I assume we're agreed on, like, at the very least needing to show that the VAB wouldn't kill astronauts. Any other response, even if sound, is conceding something you don't actually concede.
I think FEers can accept something akin to the VAB for separate reasons, whether for religious reasons or for separate justification, which can muddy communication as on one hand they can be talking about something in their own model, and then turn around to use the same words to talk about the analogue under RET. Like, the word 'Sun' means something different across models. It's not dissimilar, and it's definitely something that can make discussions unclear. In practice though, this argument can only function as an internal objection to RET - it doesn't matter what's true under FET when you're arguing against a different model.
The VAB argument is valid (ie: it works if the premises are true, there is logical implication there), but fails if you can show that the VAB wouldn't be lethal. Then it's just a matter of if they respond to the arguments for why astronauts would survive with any more than insistence and distrust; if they have other objections or just disagree with the science for stated reasons then that's an avenue.

Certainly, it can be a fine line, but I do think "You aren't justifying yourself," is a line that gets pulled out too much against FEers, when they actually are responding but are just appealing to things a REer wouldn't accept.
Have FEers made the "It wouldn't work! I'm not responding to your reasoning for why it would!" argument before? Eh, probably there's been a lot of discussions.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 03:48:32 PM

I'm not sure, but I think I disagree.

The argument I've seen is VAB would kill astronauts based upon NASA sources going back to Explorer 1.
If you don't believe in space travel, rockets, satellites and such, why would you use the perceived deadliness of the VAB as yet another reason why those things don't exist, when it's very real existence was detected and measured as a potential harm only by the very things you don't believe in to begin with.

So basically you're positing the FE argument as, "If your VAB does exist as you say it does, your astronots would be greatly harmed." Of course when countered with reams of documentation as to how we figured out how to avoid such a thing, that is simply disregarded out of hand as it's all fake anyway.

It's a really fine line. But you're not looking at the context.

I mean, it's hard to look at context when we're talking a general case. Equally, I don't agree with taking a poor delivery of an argument and using the quality of delivery to refute the point. There have been a lot of FEers making comparable arguments a lot of times.
I assume we're agreed on, like, at the very least needing to show that the VAB wouldn't kill astronauts. Any other response, even if sound, is conceding something you don't actually concede.
I think FEers can accept something akin to the VAB for separate reasons, whether for religious reasons or for separate justification, which can muddy communication as on one hand they can be talking about something in their own model, and then turn around to use the same words to talk about the analogue under RET. Like, the word 'Sun' means something different across models. It's not dissimilar, and it's definitely something that can make discussions unclear. In practice though, this argument can only function as an internal objection to RET - it doesn't matter what's true under FET when you're arguing against a different model.
The VAB argument is valid (ie: it works if the premises are true, there is logical implication there), but fails if you can show that the VAB wouldn't be lethal. Then it's just a matter of if they respond to the arguments for why astronauts would survive with any more than insistence and distrust; if they have other objections or just disagree with the science for stated reasons then that's an avenue.

Certainly, it can be a fine line, but I do think "You aren't justifying yourself," is a line that gets pulled out too much against FEers, when they actually are responding but are just appealing to things a REer wouldn't accept.
Have FEers made the "It wouldn't work! I'm not responding to your reasoning for why it would!" argument before? Eh, probably there's been a lot of discussions.

Blast from the past another site…

turbonium1

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread902580/pg11#pid16086423

The only risk Apollo had with radiation was how to fudge the actual data. And to get Van Allen on board.

This is how to sell the hoax. The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story. Not so much revised as blatantly removed the incriminating data.

Apollo had no hope of using the real data. The same reason why we can't do it, over 40 years later, or even the next 20 years. Why do you think they've sent probes into the VA Belts? Any valid reason come to mind?,

A real spacecraft will need real shielding. Not thin aluminum sheets described in Apollo-land fantasy books

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 03:48:32 PM

I'm not sure, but I think I disagree.

The argument I've seen is VAB would kill astronauts based upon NASA sources going back to Explorer 1.
If you don't believe in space travel, rockets, satellites and such, why would you use the perceived deadliness of the VAB as yet another reason why those things don't exist, when it's very real existence was detected and measured as a potential harm only by the very things you don't believe in to begin with.

So basically you're positing the FE argument as, "If your VAB does exist as you say it does, your astronots would be greatly harmed." Of course when countered with reams of documentation as to how we figured out how to avoid such a thing, that is simply disregarded out of hand as it's all fake anyway.

It's a really fine line. But you're not looking at the context.

I mean, it's hard to look at context when we're talking a general case.

But we're not talking general case. I'm talking specifically about what has been brought up before, the specifics of the example I outlined, which was recently brought up. And what's here in this thread, which I just quoted. "FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work".

Equally, I don't agree with taking a poor delivery of an argument and using the quality of delivery to refute the point. There have been a lot of FEers making comparable arguments a lot of times.
I assume we're agreed on, like, at the very least needing to show that the VAB wouldn't kill astronauts. Any other response, even if sound, is conceding something you don't actually concede.
I think FEers can accept something akin to the VAB for separate reasons, whether for religious reasons or for separate justification, which can muddy communication as on one hand they can be talking about something in their own model, and then turn around to use the same words to talk about the analogue under RET. Like, the word 'Sun' means something different across models. It's not dissimilar, and it's definitely something that can make discussions unclear. In practice though, this argument can only function as an internal objection to RET - it doesn't matter what's true under FET when you're arguing against a different model.
The VAB argument is valid (ie: it works if the premises are true, there is logical implication there), but fails if you can show that the VAB wouldn't be lethal. Then it's just a matter of if they respond to the arguments for why astronauts would survive with any more than insistence and distrust; if they have other objections or just disagree with the science for stated reasons then that's an avenue.

They don't respond to the reason why and how VAB was overcome. It defaults back to, "It's fakery".

Have FEers made the "It wouldn't work! I'm not responding to your reasoning for why it would!" argument before? Eh, probably there's been a lot of discussions.

Yes, all-of-the-time. Every time.

Blast from the past another site…

Quote

turbonium1

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread902580/pg11#pid16086423

The only risk Apollo had with radiation was how to fudge the actual data. And to get Van Allen on board.

This is how to sell the hoax. The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story. Not so much revised as blatantly removed the incriminating data.

Apollo had no hope of using the real data. The same reason why we can't do it, over 40 years later, or even the next 20 years. Why do you think they've sent probes into the VA Belts? Any valid reason come to mind?,

A real spacecraft will need real shielding. Not thin aluminum sheets described in Apollo-land fantasy books

Funny, "the real data". The "real data" that came from a rocket carrying a detecting and measuring satellite?

This is exactly what I'm talking about: Why would an FEr who doesn't believe in such things as rockets & satellites believe in the Van Allen Belts that were detected and measured by rockets & satellites?

So if you don't believe in rockets to space and, in this case, a detecting/measuring satellite, then it seems hypocritical to then say, "Well, the VAB would melt humans..."

Again, not really.
There is nothing wrong with trying to demonstrate a contradiction in a position.
You don't need to accept the position to demonstrate a contradiction.

If someone claims that if you go into the ocean on a boat, the ocean will destroy the boat and you will dye; and then also claims to have crossed the ocean in a boat; they MUST be wrong. You don't need to accept either claim to show they are wrong. All that is needed is to show that those claims are contradictory, and thus both cannot be true.

In the context of this particular argument, if we ignore the reasons why it is wrong, the idea is that either NASA is lying/wrong about the belts, or they are lying about going to the moon, and either way they must be lying.
The appropriate way to deal with such an argument is to explain why the Van Allen radiation belts don't prevent humans from going to the moon.

Trying to appeal to FEers not believing in the belts is just as invalid as a reversed hypothetical situation where a REer points out that if the sun was circling above a flat plane, with nothing in the way you should ways see the sun, so Earth can't be flat; and the FEer responding with "But you don't believe the sun circles above a flat Earth", as if that refutes the argument.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 03:09:20 PM

So if you don't believe in rockets to space and, in this case, a detecting/measuring satellite, then it seems hypocritical to then say, "Well, the VAB would melt humans..."

Again, not really.
There is nothing wrong with trying to demonstrate a contradiction in a position.
You don't need to accept the position to demonstrate a contradiction.

If someone claims that if you go into the ocean on a boat, the ocean will destroy the boat and you will dye; and then also claims to have crossed the ocean in a boat; they MUST be wrong. You don't need to accept either claim to show they are wrong. All that is needed is to show that those claims are contradictory, and thus both cannot be true.

In the context of this particular argument, if we ignore the reasons why it is wrong, the idea is that either NASA is lying/wrong about the belts, or they are lying about going to the moon, and either way they must be lying.
The appropriate way to deal with such an argument is to explain why the Van Allen radiation belts don't prevent humans from going to the moon.

Trying to appeal to FEers not believing in the belts is just as invalid as a reversed hypothetical situation where a REer points out that if the sun was circling above a flat plane, with nothing in the way you should ways see the sun, so Earth can't be flat; and the FEer responding with "But you don't believe the sun circles above a flat Earth", as if that refutes the argument.

I get all that and agree. What I don't get is the context in its entirety. Maybe I just haven't worded this properly. The contradiction in the position totally makes sense, on its own. That would be the "You guys claim there is a deadly VAB that would vaporize astronauts, therefore, human space travel is faked..."

Fair enough. Where that breaks down for me is in a couple of the full contexts:

Full Context 1
FE: "You guys claim there is a deadly VAB that would vaporize astronauts, therefore, human space travel is faked..."
RE: "Well yes, VAB, dangerous indeed, but here's how we got around it, literally..."
FE: "Fake, lies"
This is the "demonstration of a contradiction in a position" you're referring to which, sure, that's ok. Like you said in your example RE does the same thing. A seeming contradiction in our own claim.

Full Context 2 (The Bumble Argument)
FE: Says that, "Yes, we too believe that VAB is a thing and would vaporize astronauts, therefore, human space travel is faked..."
RE: "Well yes, VAB, dangerous indeed, but here's how we got around it, literally..."
FE: "Fake, lies

Here's where it gets dicey - If you believe - No longer just an RE claim - in the detected existence and measured harmfulness of the VAB, then how are you not believing in the NASA rocket and satellite that detected and measured the VAB? I find that highly contradictory.

Full Context 3 (The Turbo Argument - Very similar to #2)
FE: Says that, "Van Allen's VAB data was hidden by evil NASA to obscure the fact that astronauts would be vaporized, therefore, human space travel is faked..."
RE: "Well yes, VAB, dangerous indeed, but here's how we got around it, literally..."
FE: "Fake, lies

If you believe that Van Allen data existed and was hidden by NASA, then how do you not believe in the rocket and satellite that acquired said hidden data? I find that highly contradictory.

My issue is with #2 & #3. Both on display in this thread.

They don't respond to the reason why and how VAB was overcome. It defaults back to, "It's fakery".

Quote from: Slime on January 19, 2023, 04:27:52 PM

Have FEers made the "It wouldn't work! I'm not responding to your reasoning for why it would!" argument before? Eh, probably there's been a lot of discussions.

Yes, all-of-the-time. Every time.

It's never that easy. Take the offered example:

This is how to sell the hoax. The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story. Not so much revised as blatantly removed the incriminating data.

The argument here seems to be that Van Allen did change his readings. He predicted something more intense, but then later tweaked these numbers - you and I would say he tweaked them with further data, Turbo would say differently, but again there is more than just 'generic lie.' Personally I'd be interested in going into the origins of this claim. 'First reports' indicate this is something we actually, concretely know.
If the argument is that Van Allen originally claimed to have found something that couldn't be traversed, then even with the Explorer probes being viewed as fake, it would be suspicious for him to suddenly change his mind. That's the kind of place you would expect to see a cover-up. Equally, it is the kind of place actual scientific development would happen. This isn't just "It's fake because I say so," the reading seems to be "It's fake because VA contradicted himself."

This is a justification. Unconvincing? Sure, but he's still claiming faked data because of something. Just because you don't buy the justification doesn't mean it isn't part of his position.
There's a tendency to too-hastily dismiss FE statements as unjustified just because the justification is something you don't put much stock in. It's an unhelpful approach, because from the FE side it comes off as evasiveness. And sure, this is an example given offhand, but it's not hard to see the inherent implication here.
The other problem is, inevitably, the tendency of FEers to get mobbed - not many people bother to give huge, detailed, well thought out arguments if they feel like no one's listening. Tretaing offhand low-effort comments as a summary of someone's position tends to be rather self-fulfilling.

FE: Says that, "Yes, we too believe that VAB is a thing and would vaporize astronauts, therefore, human space travel is faked..."
RE: "Well yes, VAB, dangerous indeed, but here's how we got around it, literally..."
FE: "Fake, lies

Here's where it gets dicey - If you believe - No longer just an RE claim - in the detected existence and measured harmfulness of the VAB, then how are you not believing in the NASA rocket and satellite that detected and measured the VAB? I find that highly contradictory.

This, too, doesn't seem contradictory. FEers also believe in the Sun, it just functions very differently in their model. Using a RE term for an analogue under FET is reasonable. There's only a contradiction if they specifically use Explorer as justification, and even then in practice what I tend to see is less FEers saying "I believe in this because of a satellite," and more "Why do you find this unreasonable? Something similar enough exists under your model," which are very different statements.

This, too, doesn't seem contradictory.

I disagree.  The size of the smaller flat earth sun that would result in less charge particles to generate the magnitude of belts witnessed, with a sun that would have to be on the earth side of belts resulting in a direct path of charge particles and solar wind to earth,  with no spinning core, and no explanation how the belts would work with the dome/firmament very much contradicts the flat earth model. 

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 03:26:37 AM

This, too, doesn't seem contradictory.

I disagree.  The size of the smaller flat earth sun that would result in less charge particles to generate the magnitude of belts witnessed, with a sun that would have to be on the earth side of belts resulting in a direct path of charge particles and solar wind to earth,  with no spinning core, and no explanation how the belts would work with the dome/firmament very much contradicts the flat earth model.

One, the dome is not in every FE model and whether it contains or excludes the sun varies even within just dome models. Two, we know there is a magnetic field on the Earth, if you're getting to Van Allen Belts you may as well concede FE has some response for the purposes of discussion - if you don't want to, go argue that instead. Three, assuming a lot about the properties of the FE Sun and its environs.
And even then, the absolute best case conclusion you get from all this is "A flat earth might have radiation belts, but they'd have to come from a different source to RET."

Hence, no implicit contradiction.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2023, 08:04:22 PM

They don't respond to the reason why and how VAB was overcome. It defaults back to, "It's fakery".

Quote from: Slime on January 19, 2023, 04:27:52 PM

Have FEers made the "It wouldn't work! I'm not responding to your reasoning for why it would!" argument before? Eh, probably there's been a lot of discussions.

Yes, all-of-the-time. Every time.

It's never that easy. Take the offered example:

Quote

This is how to sell the hoax. The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story. Not so much revised as blatantly removed the incriminating data.

The argument here seems to be that Van Allen did change his readings. He predicted something more intense, but then later tweaked these numbers - you and I would say he tweaked them with further data, Turbo would say differently, but again there is more than just 'generic lie.' Personally I'd be interested in going into the origins of this claim. 'First reports' indicate this is something we actually, concretely know.

Here's where I disagree. You used the word "predicted". I see no prediction in the argument. The way I see it, rocket sent, satellite deployed, data gathered, sent back to VB. He studies the data, reports his findings, NASA buries it, changes it, whatever. In other words, it wasn't a prediction that was buried as part of the conspiracy, it was the data acquired that was buried. And how was the buried data gathered? No mention of prediction.

You've basically formulated an argument (a better one, actually) that has not been made.

And if you would personally like to delve into the origins of this claim, have at it. No one is stopping you.

If the argument is that Van Allen originally claimed to have found something that couldn't be traversed, then even with the Explorer probes being viewed as fake, it would be suspicious for him to suddenly change his mind. That's the kind of place you would expect to see a cover-up. Equally, it is the kind of place actual scientific development would happen. This isn't just "It's fake because I say so," the reading seems to be "It's fake because VA contradicted himself."

Sure. But the argument then is, who even said VB contradicted himself? Where did that come from? It's a totally different argument than how was the data acquired.

This is a justification. Unconvincing? Sure, but he's still claiming faked data because of something. Just because you don't buy the justification doesn't mean it isn't part of his position.

See above. We have never even gotten to the justification of this aspect, I'm still talking about how did VB even have the data for which it is claimed that he contradicted his own findings from the data. 

There's a tendency to too-hastily dismiss FE statements as unjustified just because the justification is something you don't put much stock in.

See above.

It's an unhelpful approach, because from the FE side it comes off as evasiveness. And sure, this is an example given offhand, but it's not hard to see the inherent implication here.

Again, we're not even talking about the justification you bring up and keep bringing up, which is not helpful.

The other problem is, inevitably, the tendency of FEers to get mobbed - not many people bother to give huge, detailed, well thought out arguments if they feel like no one's listening. Tretaing offhand low-effort comments as a summary of someone's position tends to be rather self-fulfilling.

Then don't make offhand low-effort comments.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 01:13:02 AM

FE: Says that, "Yes, we too believe that VAB is a thing and would vaporize astronauts, therefore, human space travel is faked..."
RE: "Well yes, VAB, dangerous indeed, but here's how we got around it, literally..."
FE: "Fake, lies

Here's where it gets dicey - If you believe - No longer just an RE claim - in the detected existence and measured harmfulness of the VAB, then how are you not believing in the NASA rocket and satellite that detected and measured the VAB? I find that highly contradictory.

This, too, doesn't seem contradictory. FEers also believe in the Sun, it just functions very differently in their model. Using a RE term for an analogue under FET is reasonable. There's only a contradiction if they specifically use Explorer as justification, and even then in practice what I tend to see is less FEers saying "I believe in this because of a satellite," and more "Why do you find this unreasonable? Something similar enough exists under your model," which are very different statements.

Yes, FErs believe in a Sun because we all can stare at it everyday with the proper eye protection. We're talking about the VAB that had to be detected and measured to be determined as harmful thereby, to an FEr, rendering human space travel impossible.

Again, if the assertion was, "You RE people claim VAB bad, therefore..." and not, "Yes, the VAB is a thing and harmful, astronauts melt," or" VA changed his findings..." or whatever, then no problem. It's the context 2 & 3 that are the problem.

I get it, you're all about what you deem is the best practice approach to all interactions and constantly and consistently deem any other approach as "unhelpful". Duly noted. But your manner also extends a lot of rope and forgiveness to the underdog, even rewarding them as all of us RErs are just angry globulists. What you are blind to is a lot of the time and effort some RErs put into their arguments without anger or hostility. You almost never even recognize that. Just keep lecturing us on how everything we say is unhelpful.

Not every interaction that turns a little hostile is the fault of an REr, nor the fault of an FEr. And I'm tired of the semi-holier than thou lecturing.

It's not like astronauts are expected to live in the van allen belt. The Apollo 11 astronauts got about the same dose of radiation in the few hours they spent in there as a couple of chest xrays. Big deal


And the payoff for that exposure was they got to go to OUTER FRICKEN SPACE!!!

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 03:26:37 AM

This is a justification. Unconvincing? Sure, but he's still claiming faked data because of something. Just because you don't buy the justification doesn't mean it isn't part of his position.

See above. We have never even gotten to the justification of this aspect, I'm still talking about how did VB even have the data for which it is claimed that he contradicted his own findings from the data. 

I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making - for the purposes of discussion, let's say the satellites weren't launched. Van Allen made a claim about charged particles, either outright lying or being given fake data from NASA after the date we take to be the launch of Explorer 1. Turbo's argument is "The first reports were considered accurate, and were later revised." That is, the later Explorer satellites that also took readings of the belts brought back information that contradicted the first, and were friendlier to the idea of manned space travel. This matches the proposal of a conspiracy fudging the numbers to justify themselves.
This is more than just assertion - the argument is a contradiction. One could concede it and argue that the second experiment was more accurate, though that is potentially problematic. Personally I'm interested in the source of the data, because I can't find much on the precise readings from Explorers 1 and 3, beyond:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1958-001A
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1958-003A
Which, if you follow the data collection rabbithole, are going to likely need physically going there and accessing the microfilm as the data comes from the 50s.

The argument made does not require the Explorer satellites to exist - it is that a claim was made, and then retracted when they realised it'd get in the way of their plan.
Now, if you want to argue it's a false statement, or ask Turbo for his source, I'd agree with that tactic - but that's very different to saying he doesn't have an argument. If it turns out NASA's direct data goes against this and he keeps to the argument and says it was meddled with, then you'd have an issue - ditto, if his source isn't NASA but a book from a dubious source, that'd be shady. But it seems, at the very least, the thing to do here would be to ask "The first reports that Van Allen never retracted, where can I find them and what do they say?" rather than assert that the reports don't exist. Otherwise the argument just straight-up goes unaddressed.

I get it, you're all about what you deem is the best practice approach to all interactions and constantly and consistently deem any other approach as "unhelpful". Duly noted. But your manner also extends a lot of rope and forgiveness to the underdog, even rewarding them as all of us RErs are just angry globulists. What you are blind to is a lot of the time and effort some RErs put into their arguments without anger or hostility. You almost never even recognize that. Just keep lecturing us on how everything we say is unhelpful.

Not every interaction that turns a little hostile is the fault of an REr, nor the fault of an FEr. And I'm tired of the semi-holier than thou lecturing.

Holier than thou isn't my intent - I pretty much have two ways of typing, one is very casual and comes off as dismissive, while this is my academic voice when I'm trying to actually convey information.
I wouldn't agree with extending a lot of rope to the underdog, though I certainly offer more to FEers than REers purely because, like, we have it a million times easier if we want to explain the complexities of our position. We have way more sources, way more data, way more things to draw on, and we way outnumber FEers even on this forum. A FEer can get exhausted from replying to half a dozen different users, a REer really has no excuse on that front. In my head, it's less about offering more rope, and more about offering as much as we need. I don't think we need to grandstand, and I think doing so is actively counter-productive. If you just assume the person you're talking to doesn't have an argument and engage on those grounds, it makes life easier, but it seems unhelpful from your perspective and actively antagonising from theirs.
Your contexts 2 and 3 seem to more generally be bad faith interpretations of potentially rushed posts. Call it 'best practice approach,' whatever, but it seems to be that 'unhelpful' is at best a euphemism for telling someone they're wrong before asking them to clarify themselves. (Academic voice again, if I was slipping out of it, there would be a touch more swearing in describing that style)

There can be a lot of time and effort put into arguments by some users - I generally keep out of those threads because I'm more interested in seeing how FEers respond. Far, far more often though, you get arguments that just fundamentally don't work. Do I have a bias? Eh, maybe - if you talk more to FEers, you have more bad experiences with FEers. If you talk more to REers, you have more bad experiences with them. The biggest difference likely is that you only ever see my first post to FEers because conversations and threads very quickly end up derailed so I don't even have the opportunity to get frustrated with them.

I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making - for the purposes of discussion, let's say the satellites weren't launched. Van Allen made a claim about charged particles, either outright lying or being given fake data from NASA after the date we take to be the launch of Explorer 1.

You posted this first…

The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story.

I think you falling for an earth movement falsehood…

Explorer 1


https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/explorer-1


About the mission
Explorer 1 became the first successfully launched satellite by the United States when it was sent to space on January 31, 1958. A quick response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1, Explorer 1's success marked the beginning of the U.S. Space Age.

The satellite, which was designed, built and operated by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, carried a cosmic ray detector, which lead to Explorer Principal Investigator Dr. James Van Allen's discovery of radiation belts around Earth held in place by the planet's magnetic field. The findings were later named Van Allen belts in honor of their discoverer.

The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the State University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. Van Allen theorized that the instrument may have been saturated by very strong radiation from a belt of charged particles trapped in space by Earth's magnetic field. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer.

Then there was Explorer III

About the mission
Explorer 3 was the third satellite of the Explorer mission series and the first successful follow-on to Explorer 1, which made history when in January 1958 it became the United States' first space satellite. Like it's predecessor, Explorer 3 collected data confirming the theory that radiation belts trapped by Earth's magnetic field exist around the planet.

The Explorer series consisted of more than fifty satellites launched over a period of about 15 years. In 1960, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which designed, built and operated the first five satellites of the series, turned the project over to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and turned its attention to planetary exploration with its Mariner, Ranger and Surveyor spacecraft projects.

Data from Explorer 3 — combined with earlier measurements from Explorer 1 — confirmed Principal Investigator James Van Allen's theory that radiation belts trapped by Earth's magnetic field exist around the planet.


https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/explorer-1

Only a person intellectually dishonest would claim it’s a hoax because actual data, and data changed over time as missions and instruments became more refined, from the original theorized values based on a model with unknowns.  Specially if your stance is “the earth might be flat because we keep learning and our knowledge keeps changing”.

To claim a hoax because real measurements and collected data evolved the understanding of the Van Allen Belts, then claim we are still learning things that evolve our understanding of the shape of the earth is hypocritical. 

Claim hoax because the model of the Van Allen Belts evolved as better and more accurate data was collected is flat earth propaganda, and manufactured crises, intellectually dishonest, and a total disregard for the scientific method.  And blatantly white washes the history of the Explorer missions.

Only a person intellectually dishonest would claim it’s a hoax because actual data, and data changed over time as missions and instruments became mote refined, from the original theorized values based on a model with unknowns.  Specially if your stance is “the earth might be flat because we keep learning and our knowledge keeps changing”.

My stance is not "The Earth might be flat," my stance is "Respond to the arguments FEers actually make." Do you disagree?

The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story.

What were these original “reports” and why would they be considered “gospel”?

That isn’t the history of the matter, that is flat earth propaganda and word games.

Create a lie of what actually happen. Get people to debated the false narrative. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 20, 2023, 06:17:08 AM

Only a person intellectually dishonest would claim it’s a hoax because actual data, and data changed over time as missions and instruments became mote refined, from the original theorized values based on a model with unknowns.  Specially if your stance is “the earth might be flat because we keep learning and our knowledge keeps changing”.

My stance is not "The Earth might be flat," my stance is "Respond to the arguments FEers actually make." Do you disagree?

My stance is to not believe misleading arguments manufactured by flat earther’s.  To check if their arguments are based on actual historical facts, or based on their manufactured mythology. 

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 03:26:37 AM

The first reports were considered accurate, and Van Allen never retracted his findings or data. The data was 'revised' to sell the Apollo story.

What were this original “reports” and why would they be considered “gospel”?

That isn’t the history of the matter, that is flat earth propaganda and word games.

Create a lie of what actually happen. Get people to debated the false narrative.

Also, anyone that knows even a little of the subject knows the radiation in the belt is not some static, unchanging level but it fluctuates. So you can send a probe up there one time and detect a lot and then not so much another time

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.[36] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[5][6]

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv)[c] per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[36]

Flat Earthers might be better spent talking up actual facts rather than ad hoc'ing nonsense. If they were to say that the radiation exposure from solar and cosmic rays were a hazard of concern for anyone wanting to spend time in space (eg trip to Mars), I could work with that. But that's why we can use shielding to minimise the damage.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23230-mars-trip-to-use-astronaut-poo-as-radiation-shield/



Trying to say that humans would be crippled or killed or crossing the belt is an impossibility is simply demonstrably false. So why do they go for that?

Yes, the Van Allen Belt is a hazard, but humans on the ground, here on Earth work with far more dangerous hazards in a plethora of work sites and industries. So not actually a big deal. The take off or landing is the bigger risk than the act of traversing the belt

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 04:31:38 AM

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 03:26:37 AM

This is a justification. Unconvincing? Sure, but he's still claiming faked data because of something. Just because you don't buy the justification doesn't mean it isn't part of his position.

See above. We have never even gotten to the justification of this aspect, I'm still talking about how did VB even have the data for which it is claimed that he contradicted his own findings from the data. 

I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making - for the purposes of discussion, let's say the satellites weren't launched. Van Allen made a claim about charged particles, either outright lying or being given fake data from NASA after the date we take to be the launch of Explorer 1. Turbo's argument is "The first reports were considered accurate, and were later revised." That is, the later Explorer satellites that also took readings of the belts brought back information that contradicted the first, and were friendlier to the idea of manned space travel. This matches the proposal of a conspiracy fudging the numbers to justify themselves.

You're assuming a lot based upon a simple assertion:

- What "first" reports? (Actually, there were some, but not at all characterized as truly detecting the belts and their potential harm, more, hmmm, I wonder what these reading are all about - But I'll get to that in a bit)
- Who's the 'who' that considered them accurate?

Again, reality context. When questions like that are asked, of this particular individual, you simply get an all caps response yelling things like, "there is NO WAY TO EVER PROVE 'SPACE' EVEN EXISTS," or, "Are you brain damaged, or have memory loss? I've just TOLD you." Helpful.

This is more than just assertion - the argument is a contradiction. One could concede it and argue that the second experiment was more accurate, though that is potentially problematic.

The assertion is that there were "two" experiments. Who said there was a "first" experiment? What was the "first" experiment"? As in, how was the "first" experiment carried out? Was it in a petri dish or in space? (Again, I'll get to the "first" ina bit)

The assertion bit is exactly this, "Yeah, well, unknown experiment 1 findings were intentionally contradicted after experiment 2 to hide the dangers that were found in experiment 1 (because experiment 2 never really happened anyway because rockets are fake and so is space!"

Personally I'm interested in the source of the data, because I can't find much on the precise readings from Explorers 1 and 3, beyond:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1958-001A
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1958-003A
Which, if you follow the data collection rabbithole, are going to likely need physically going there and accessing the microfilm as the data comes from the 50s.

What you want is VA's Radiation Belts around the Earth, published in March, 1959, 14 months after the Explorer I launch.

"First Experiment":
Instruments borne aloft by artificial satellites and lunar probes indicate that our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy particles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded

The story of the investigation goes back to 1952 and 1953, before any of us could think realistically about the use of earth satellites to explore the environment of the earth. Parties from our lab oratory at the State University of Iowa spent the summers of those years aboard Coast Guard and naval vessels, cruising along a 1,500-mile line from the waters of Baffin Bay, near the magnetic pole in the far northwestern corner of Greenland, southward to the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland.
Along the way we launched a series of rocket-carrying balloons "rockoons." (The balloon lifts a small rocket to an altitude of 12 to 15 miles, whence the rocket carries a modest payload of instruments to a height of 60 to 70 miles.) Our objective was to develop a profile of the cos- mic-ray intensities at high altitudes and latitudes, and thus to learn the nature of the low-energy cosmic rays which at lower altitudes and latitudes are deflected by the earth's magnetic field or absorbed in the atmosphere.

60-70 miles up - aka, Rockets in space.

They were "puzzled" by some of the data, but it wasn't until Explorer I that they really had a sense as to what was going on and the potential harm. There weren't any findings that VA had to "contradict" to please NASA. What really freaked everyone out was the data back from Explorer I.

(You can buy the full paper from Scientific American for $99)

From Data-Driven Modelling of the Van Allen Belts: The 5DRBM Model for Trapped Electrons:

Only theorised before space exploration began (Stormer, 1937), the Earth Radiation Belts were discovered for the first time in 1958 with the very first US satellite, Explorer 1. These first in-situ measurements allowed Mr. James Van Allen, payload specialist of the Explorer missions, to discover successively: the inner proton belt (Explorer 1 & 3), the inner electron belt (Explorer 4) and the outer electron belt (Pioneer 3) (Van Allen, 1959). Consequently, these high radiation regions surrounding the Earth are known as the Van Allen Belts (VAB).

From Earth's Van Allen Radiation Belts: From Discovery to the Van Allen Probes Era:

Discovery of the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts by instruments flown on Explorer 1 in 1958 was the first major discovery of the Space Age. The observation of distinct inner and outer zones of trapped megaelectron volt (MeV) particles, primarily protons at low altitude and electrons at high altitude, led to early models for source and loss mechanisms including Cosmic Ray Albedo Neutron Decay for inner zone protons, radial diffusion for outer zone electrons and loss to the atmosphere due to pitch angle scattering.

Another interesting read may be Radiation Belts and Beyond. Which starts with a 1961 satellite - Lots of data.

The argument made does not require the Explorer satellites to exist - it is that a claim was made, and then retracted when they realised it'd get in the way of their plan.

I still disagree. But perhaps. In any case, this "experiment #1" still required rockets going to space in order to even kick off the exploration of possible radiation belts way up there...in space.

Holier than thou isn't my intent - I pretty much have two ways of typing, one is very casual and comes off as dismissive, while this is my academic voice when I'm trying to actually convey information.

I guess you do you.