Thats because there is no answer offered except for this gross simplification. Any logic or reason involved dictates that actual humans on the ISS would be cooked like in an oven. As you said even the most advanced thermal tiles created by man can only withstand the temperatures for brief amount of time... Just like the brevity in exposure to the amount of intense solar radiation is the only way to explain away the certain death that would face an Apollo astronaut in passing through.
I don't believe we have machines in space orbiting the earth based on principles of a thought experiment by a 17th century alchemist. Universal Gravity has thoroughly been refuted by scholars without a dog in the race and has only been clung onto by institutions like universities and space agencies for political, monetary, and authoritarian reasons, just like the theory of general relativity.
The earth itself is exposed to essentially the same thermal environment as spacecraft. The biggest difference is that the earth is huge and has been here a long time, so has reached thermal equilibrium.
Actually, as far as the earth is concerned, the situation is quite a bit worse in that there is considerable internal heat generated, about 50% from radioactive decay. The atmosphere does not help a great deal, because a lot of solar radiation comes in at near optical wavelengths and heats the surface of the earth. Some is then re-radiated, but at longer wavelengths which are absorbed by the atmosphere. This is exacerbated by the presence of extra CO
2 and water vapour.
No it's not "
Just like the brevity in exposure to the amount of intense solar radiation is the only way to explain away the certain death that would face an Apollo astronaut in passing through." The van Allen belts were well mapped beforehand and the type of radiation is largely "particulate" (ie ions and not gamma radiation) and can be shielded by light weight materials (thin aluminium, polythene, etc). If you are the tiniest bit interested (I do doubt it - it might disturb your obvious ignorance!) look up:
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html which addresses this very topic.
The space vehicles can be fitted with a reflective (shiny!) skin to reflect radiation, so there is no reason with the appropriate radiators they cannot achieve a heat balance.
You claim "the most
advanced thermal tiles created by man can only withstand the temperatures for brief amount of time".
Those tiles were
designed to withstand extreme temperatures for a short time and the did what they were designed to do!
On spacecraft, (whatever you say) there is not that extreme heat to contend with! No thermal insulation can keep heat out for an indefinite time! Though modern thermal insulation is extremely good, it only delays the transmission of heat. Still it can be very useful in thermal control.
And, we do not have "machines in space orbiting the earth based on principles of a thought experiment by a 17th century alchemist"!
Newton did a lot more than a though experiment. Both he and Hooke did a large amount of experimental work, and Hooke was well advanced on the same theory and had he not died 24 years before Newton we might well have had Hooke's Law of Universal Gravitation!
No, Newton not suddenly dream up this law after being knocked silly by an apple!
Then of course you deliberately ignore:
What
force did Henry Cavendish (and numerous others in the couple of centuries since) measure.
Though there are, so far unexplained small variations, they certainly measured a force that
leads to an accepted value of G = 6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Most of these have used apparatus similar in principle to the torsion balance apparatus designed and constructed by geologist John Michell, and performed by Henry Cavendish (John Michell died before he could do the experiment himself). But some later quite different experiments are using quantum properties of cold Rubidium atoms and a 500 kg test mass. So far the results from this method differ a little from the accepted value, but later refinements are getting better agreement.
Then you claim:
Universal Gravity has thoroughly been refuted by scholars
Please come up with some sound evidence of this. Put up, or shut up as they say in the better classics!
I have seen
one paper by Miles Mathis claiming "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis
proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".
Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!
Look you do not believe in space craft, space, satellites etc, I wish you would just stop showing your abysmal ignorance on these matters!
If you don't even believe in these things,
would you please explain how the measurements on the thermoshere and van Allen belts were carried out! From sounding rockets and spacecraft of course!
If you seriously want answers fine, but all you want to do is push you own agenda!
And when you start attacking well proven results with no better argument than the Newton was an Alchemist, you have lost the plot! It's a bit tough criticising someone that lived 400 years ago because he lacked the modern knowledge of the elements!