First of all, reality is interconnected. If you are evaluating a hypothesis about reality (as opposed to an abstract puzzle), it should match everything you see. So, Hollow Earth. What are the implications? Clearly there is a vast conspiracy to conceal the truth. A massive, very expensive conspiracy—someone has to generate all these photos made from space or from upper atmosphere, generate e.g. live video feeds from the International Space Station. There are no satellites, but GPS actually works, so there is some entirely unknown system which allows you to pinpoint your location anywhere on Earth. Gravity obviously works very differently from what the textbooks say. Etc. etc.
If Hollow Earth is actually true, you should be much more concerned about things other than the shape of the planet.
As to this specific example, it’s misleading.
Speaking at a very crude level, temperature is a measure of energy. The higher the temperature of something, the more energy that something has. If we are talking about gases (like the Earth’s atmosphere), we can simplify it even more—temperature is a measure of how fast do gas molecules move.
However temperature (= speed) is a per-molecule thing. Let’s take a cubic meter of space and put a single gas molecule in there. And let’s make it move very fast—as fast as it would take to correspond to 2500 degrees C. Will this molecule melt anything? Nope, it’s energetic, but it’s alone. The amount of energy it can transfer to something it hits is very very small.
How much something gets heated in a, technically, 2500 C environment depends on the density of that environment. If the gas is very rarefied, meaning the number of molecules per cubic meter is small, you won’t get much heat. If it’s dense (lots of molecules), you get a lot of heat.
That’s why you can easily pass your hand through a flame (gas, low density), but you can’t pass your hand through boiling water (liquid, high density) even though the temperature of the flame is higher than that of boiling water.
If you don’t understand a subject, don’t hurry to declare some explanations you see on the ’net convincing or coherent. You are not qualified to judge.
I don’t understand why you think this is a refutation. What is giving energy to the molecules in the upper atmosphere, if not the sun? And if it is the sun, higher density matter like satellites would would experience extreme heat.
And if it is the sun, higher density matter like satellites would would experience extreme heat.
Not extreme heat. Satellites do get heated by the sun, certainly, but not to 2500 C. They absorb energy coming from the sun, but they also radiate energy—the stable/average temperature depends on the balance of incoming and outgoing. Satellites have to manage this balance and they do. One very common method is reflective shields.
Think about it this way—why doesn’t the whole Earth overheat?
First of all, reality is interconnected. If you are evaluating a hypothesis about reality (as opposed to an abstract puzzle), it should match everything you see. So, Hollow Earth. What are the implications? Clearly there is a vast conspiracy to conceal the truth. A massive, very expensive conspiracy—someone has to generate all these photos made from space or from upper atmosphere, generate e.g. live video feeds from the International Space Station. There are no satellites, but GPS actually works, so there is some entirely unknown system which allows you to pinpoint your location anywhere on Earth. Gravity obviously works very differently from what the textbooks say. Etc. etc.
If Hollow Earth is actually true, you should be much more concerned about things other than the shape of the planet.
As to this specific example, it’s misleading.
Speaking at a very crude level, temperature is a measure of energy. The higher the temperature of something, the more energy that something has. If we are talking about gases (like the Earth’s atmosphere), we can simplify it even more—temperature is a measure of how fast do gas molecules move.
However temperature (= speed) is a per-molecule thing. Let’s take a cubic meter of space and put a single gas molecule in there. And let’s make it move very fast—as fast as it would take to correspond to 2500 degrees C. Will this molecule melt anything? Nope, it’s energetic, but it’s alone. The amount of energy it can transfer to something it hits is very very small.
How much something gets heated in a, technically, 2500 C environment depends on the density of that environment. If the gas is very rarefied, meaning the number of molecules per cubic meter is small, you won’t get much heat. If it’s dense (lots of molecules), you get a lot of heat.
That’s why you can easily pass your hand through a flame (gas, low density), but you can’t pass your hand through boiling water (liquid, high density) even though the temperature of the flame is higher than that of boiling water.
If you don’t understand a subject, don’t hurry to declare some explanations you see on the ’net convincing or coherent. You are not qualified to judge.
I don’t understand why you think this is a refutation. What is giving energy to the molecules in the upper atmosphere, if not the sun? And if it is the sun, higher density matter like satellites would would experience extreme heat.
Not extreme heat. Satellites do get heated by the sun, certainly, but not to 2500 C. They absorb energy coming from the sun, but they also radiate energy—the stable/average temperature depends on the balance of incoming and outgoing. Satellites have to manage this balance and they do. One very common method is reflective shields.
Think about it this way—why doesn’t the whole Earth overheat?