Well, I don’t know a whole lot about physics or the other subjects he talks about. It just seems very well-argued to me. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is incoherent?
This is not a good response. Surely you can admit this is coherent?
At about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off (100km is the very start of the radiation belts as well which become full strength at 200km funnily enough), although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it…
2500°C!
I kid you not.
In case you don’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.
The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.
Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.
Now guess what altitude all the NASA machines are supposed to orbit Earth?
We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!
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?
The claim is correct. The ISS is orbiting right in the middle of the thermosphere, and the temperature there is indeed higher than the melting point of iron. You’re one Google search away from learning why the ISS doesn’t melt. I know the answer, but it’s important that you find it out yourself.
Ah, I already Googled but I got confused because the first guy who came up on the search seemed to be talking about something else.
But I used a different phrasing and got the answer. FWI, Google isn’t always reliable for refuting crackpots and Wikipedia is very unreliable. If I assumed that the latter represented the state of human knowledge I’d be forced to concede that most of what Wild Heretic says is true.
If you’re not an expert on some topic, and it’s not too politicized, then I think trusting Wikipedia and using it as a starting point is the best strategy available today.
Well, I don’t know a whole lot about physics or the other subjects he talks about. It just seems very well-argued to me. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is incoherent?
These two facts are related.
That is the kind of snark that is entirely justified.
All of it.
I recommend developing critical thinking skills.
This is not a good response. Surely you can admit this is coherent?
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?
Yes, satellite cooling is a real technical problem. You’re one Google search away from learning all about it.
The claim being made is that satellites should be exposed to temperatures nearly twice as hot as the melting point of iron.
The claim is correct. The ISS is orbiting right in the middle of the thermosphere, and the temperature there is indeed higher than the melting point of iron. You’re one Google search away from learning why the ISS doesn’t melt. I know the answer, but it’s important that you find it out yourself.
Ah, I already Googled but I got confused because the first guy who came up on the search seemed to be talking about something else.
But I used a different phrasing and got the answer. FWI, Google isn’t always reliable for refuting crackpots and Wikipedia is very unreliable. If I assumed that the latter represented the state of human knowledge I’d be forced to concede that most of what Wild Heretic says is true.
If you’re not an expert on some topic, and it’s not too politicized, then I think trusting Wikipedia and using it as a starting point is the best strategy available today.
On a hard-science topic, probably. On a topic is any way connected to culture wars, not necessarily.
Quick check, did you read my comment before replying? Every word of it? :-)
No. Temperature is not heat.