İntikam

Thermosphere is a part of the atmosphere and starts with aititude 100 kms and finishes about 700 kms.

Thermosphere has a temperature between the low one is 200 Celsius degrees that about double of the boiling temperature of water; and the highest one goes to 1600 Celsius degrees that about %80 of oxygen gas welder.

Thermosphere in this state is like as a small hell.

So entering thermosphere is same with entering hell for all human, animal, live or inanimate.

If NASA had really  passed that "HELL", then must show on the earth how an rocket passing from an area has 200 to 1600 celcius temperature about a time while same vehicle has human on it and don't dead.

Is somebody see a test like this? i don't think so. Who want to enter to the hell? But it is easy to pass a hell on a computer animation :D
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 01:53:58 PM by İntikam »

Temperatures at sea level cannot be compared with temperatures at those altitudes.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Thermosphere is a part of the atmosphere and starts with aititude 100 kms and finishes about 700 kms.

Thermosphere has a temperature between the low one is 200 Celsius degrees that about double of the boiling temperature of water; and the highest one goes to 1600 Celsius degrees that about %80 of oxygen gas welder.

Thermosphere in this state is like as a small hell.

So entering thermosphere is same with entering hell for all human, animal, live or inanimate.

If NASA had really  passed that "HELL", then must show on the earth how an rocket passing from an area has 200 to 1600 celcius temperature about a time while same vehicle has human on it and don't dead.

Is somebody see a test like this? i don't think so. Who want to enter to the hell? But it is easy to pass a hell on a computer animation :D

Just how long do have to put up with these ignorant statements that keep being made about the thermosphere?

It is true that the temperature of the gases in the thermosphere is extremely high,
but to transfer heat to an object (spacecraft or satellite) the amount of thermal energy is also extremely important.

The nominal start of space (and the thermosphere) is the Kármán line at 100 km altitude.
At this the air density is about 1/2200000 the density on the surface, and decreases roughly exponentially above that.

The table on the right shows the number of molecules (air or otherwise)
at various altitudes relative to the number at sea level (altitude = 0 km).

As you can there is essentially nothing at those altitudes to contain any heat
 - the "heat capacity" is close enough to ZERO.

   
Altitude
     
Relative Density
     
Or if you like a lot of 0's
0 km
     
1.0000
     
1
40 km
     
0.0033
     
1/307
100 km
     
4.67E-07
     
1/2,140,000
200 km
     
2.82-10
     
1/3,550,000,000
400 km
     
4.15E-12
     
1/241,000,000,000
1,000 km
     
2.14E-14
     
1/46,800,000,000,000
This makes to gas in the thermosphere an almost perfect insulator.
We can make insulating tiles that have such a low heat capacity and low thermal conductivity that a white hot tile can be held safely in the hand!
Take a look at this picture an video.

These tiles have a density of 140 kg/m3. That looks a lot, but remember that water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Air at sea level has a density of 1.225 kg/m3 and the "atmosphere" at even 100 km has a density of roughly (it varies a lot) is only 5.7 x 10-7 kg/m3 (or 1/1,750,000 kg/m3 if you prefer).

So just imagine how much less the heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the thermosphere is than these tiles!

Now please put this question to bed! The thermosphere does not burn anything up because there if virtually nothing there!

And while we are at it the atmosphere does not FLY AWAY because at these extreme altitudes there is no atmosphere "to fly away", it is all held lower by gravity.

It's just more of "I don't understand the globe, so the earth must be flat".

I know İntikam will not read this. Well, I could not care less, he is simple so ignorant that he will never learn, but just possibly others might look further into it!




*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Thermosphere is a part of the atmosphere and starts with aititude 100 kms and finishes about 700 kms.

Thermosphere has a temperature between the low one is 200 Celsius degrees that about double of the boiling temperature of water; and the highest one goes to 1600 Celsius degrees that about %80 of oxygen gas welder.

Thermosphere in this state is like as a small hell.

So entering thermosphere is same with entering hell for all human, animal, live or inanimate.

If NASA had really  passed that "HELL", then must show on the earth how an rocket passing from an area has 200 to 1600 celcius temperature about a time while same vehicle has human on it and don't dead.

Is somebody see a test like this? i don't think so. Who want to enter to the hell? But it is easy to pass a hell on a computer animation :D

Just how long do have to put up with these ignorant statements that keep being made about the thermosphere?

It is true that the temperature of the gases in the thermosphere is extremely high,
but to transfer heat to an object (spacecraft or satellite) the amount of thermal energy is also extremely important.

The nominal start of space (and the thermosphere) is the Kármán line at 100 km altitude.
At this the air density is about 1/2200000 the density on the surface, and decreases roughly exponentially above that.

The table on the right shows the number of molecules (air or otherwise)
at various altitudes relative to the number at sea level (altitude = 0 km).

As you can there is essentially nothing at those altitudes to contain any heat
 - the "heat capacity" is close enough to ZERO.

   
Altitude
     
Relative Density
     
Or if you like a lot of 0's
0 km
     
1.0000
     
1
40 km
     
0.0033
     
1/307
100 km
     
4.67E-07
     
1/2,140,000
200 km
     
2.82-10
     
1/3,550,000,000
400 km
     
4.15E-12
     
1/241,000,000,000
1,000 km
     
2.14E-14
     
1/46,800,000,000,000
This makes to gas in the thermosphere an almost perfect insulator.
We can make insulating tiles that have such a low heat capacity and low thermal conductivity that a white hot tile can be held safely in the hand!
Take a look at this picture an video.

These tiles have a density of 140 kg/m3. That looks a lot, but remember that water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Air at sea level has a density of 1.225 kg/m3 and the "atmosphere" at even 100 km has a density of roughly (it varies a lot) is only 5.7 x 10-7 kg/m3 (or 1/1,750,000 kg/m3 if you prefer).

So just imagine how much less the heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the thermosphere is than these tiles!

Now please put this question to bed! The thermosphere does not burn anything up because there if virtually nothing there!

And while we are at it the atmosphere does not FLY AWAY because at these extreme altitudes there is no atmosphere "to fly away", it is all held lower by gravity.

It's just more of "I don't understand the globe, so the earth must be flat".


Hi Inti' I was going to write this but Rab has done it in a lot more detail with a link that is good ( the tile) but as you are ignoring him you won't have seen it.

In a nutshell, individual atoms have a high temperature but they are so rare that the amount you would encounter would not be able to create the hell you talk of.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

İntikam


Hi Inti' I was going to write this but Rab has done it in a lot more detail with a link that is good ( the tile) but as you are ignoring him you won't have seen it.

In a nutshell, individual atoms have a high temperature but they are so rare that the amount you would encounter would not be able to create the hell you talk of.

This explanation is not true.

Look at the matter of: "Particle is the God for Scientists instead of God

Quote
Hello mister and miss satanists and humanity.

"Why is the cosmos occur?"
Science: "Because of a big bang. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. "
Religion: God created it.

"Why is the sky is blue?
Science: Because some particles causing refraction and then it causes a blue colour...
Religion: God surrounded the world with water and gave the water a colour that blue.

"How is gravitation occurs?
Science: "The gravitional particles..."
Religion:  "There is no gravitation, but God..."

We see that when populer science fell difficult situation, just starting to talk about "the particles".

So you are believeing to particles instead of God.

because;

You are usually telling us that: "You are believing God and explain everthing with God, but we can't see him.
So I'm telling you You are believing particle instead of God and explain everthing with particle, but we can't see it."

What is difference except faith?

I don't need to add something except this. When i see an explanation contains "atoms, particles,... etc something that we don't see" directly stopping to read the other words. And please don't quote from agressors. If you do it again, i'll ignore you with no warn.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 02:03:09 PM by İntikam »

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile

Well Inti’ this is where we part ways.

Religion is a primitive way of trying to understand the universe, superseded step by step over the ages by the “science of the particles”, can’t see them directly but we know them for what they do.

Things you can’t see are running your computer right now, if it breaks try going to a church to get it fixed.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

İntikam


Well Inti’ this is where we part ways.

Religion is a primitive way of trying to understand the universe, superseded step by step over the ages by the “science of the particles”, can’t see them directly but we know them for what they do.

Things you can’t see are running your computer right now, if it breaks try going to a church to get it fixed.

Who care to be on same way with you or not? We are currently on the completely different way. Because you see everything as the perspective of what the  popular science says about it.

I hate the explanation about particles because it is the most one of the rounder's lie.

Lets talk about thermosphere. Your idea explain it how it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle. But this is completely a lia. Because;

the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles. For example actually the particles has about 5.000-10.000 or above temperatures if they are according to the density. If they have high density then they have near temperature to 1.000 celcius like 1500, 2000 celcius degrees likely. If they have low density, then they must high temperature like 10.000 , 20.000, or 50.000 celcius degrees temperature. Because the "average temperature" is stable, is equal about 1.000, so if the density of the materials decreasing, then the temperature of the materials increases.

I hope you understand me and see the nonsence of the explanation of the popular science. Or you are a fake.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile

Well Inti’ this is where we part ways.

Religion is a primitive way of trying to understand the universe, superseded step by step over the ages by the “science of the particles”, can’t see them directly but we know them for what they do.

Things you can’t see are running your computer right now, if it breaks try going to a church to get it fixed.

Who care to be on same way with you or not? We are currently on the completely different way. Because you see everything as the perspective of what the  popular science says about it.

I hate the explanation about particles because it is the most one of the rounder's lie.

Lets talk about thermosphere. Your idea explain it how it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle. But this is completely a lia. Because;

the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles. For example actually the particles has about 5.000-10.000 or above temperatures if they are according to the density. If they have high density then they have near temperature to 1.000 celcius like 1500, 2000 celcius degrees likely. If they have low density, then they must high temperature like 10.000 , 20.000, or 50.000 celcius degrees temperature. Because the "average temperature" is stable, is equal about 1.000, so if the density of the materials decreasing, then the temperature of the materials increases.

I hope you understand me and see the nonsence of the explanation of the popular science. Or you are a fake.

Maybe thinking about surface area and conduction will help in your work.


*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile

Well Inti’ this is where we part ways.

Religion is a primitive way of trying to understand the universe, superseded step by step over the ages by the “science of the particles”, can’t see them directly but we know them for what they do.

Things you can’t see are running your computer right now, if it breaks try going to a church to get it fixed.

Who care to be on same way with you or not? We are currently on the completely different way. Because you see everything as the perspective of what the  popular science says about it.

I hate the explanation about particles because it is the most one of the rounder's lie.

Lets talk about thermosphere. Your idea explain it how it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle. But this is completely a lia. Because;

the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles. For example actually the particles has about 5.000-10.000 or above temperatures if they are according to the density. If they have high density then they have near temperature to 1.000 celcius like 1500, 2000 celcius degrees likely. If they have low density, then they must high temperature like 10.000 , 20.000, or 50.000 celcius degrees temperature. Because the "average temperature" is stable, is equal about 1.000, so if the density of the materials decreasing, then the temperature of the materials increases.

I hope you understand me and see the nonsence of the explanation of the popular science. Or you are a fake.

Sure "the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles."

But there are virtually no "particles" there to conduct any heat to any object in the thermosphere! And HOW do you know all this? Have YOU been there?
No, you learnt about this thermosphere from information NASA obtained from sounding rockets and satellites!

You simply hate the truth, and insist on making a fool of yourself and a mockery of the whole flat earth movement![/color]
Keep it up you are destroying any chance that the idea of a flat earth can ever gain wide acceptance, and that is fine by me.

İntikam


Well Inti’ this is where we part ways.

Religion is a primitive way of trying to understand the universe, superseded step by step over the ages by the “science of the particles”, can’t see them directly but we know them for what they do.

Things you can’t see are running your computer right now, if it breaks try going to a church to get it fixed.

Who care to be on same way with you or not? We are currently on the completely different way. Because you see everything as the perspective of what the  popular science says about it.

I hate the explanation about particles because it is the most one of the rounder's lie.

Lets talk about thermosphere. Your idea explain it how it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle. But this is completely a lia. Because;

the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles. For example actually the particles has about 5.000-10.000 or above temperatures if they are according to the density. If they have high density then they have near temperature to 1.000 celcius like 1500, 2000 celcius degrees likely. If they have low density, then they must high temperature like 10.000 , 20.000, or 50.000 celcius degrees temperature. Because the "average temperature" is stable, is equal about 1.000, so if the density of the materials decreasing, then the temperature of the materials increases.

I hope you understand me and see the nonsence of the explanation of the popular science. Or you are a fake.

Maybe thinking about surface area and conduction will help in your work.

I wrote this article by addressing a person. If you pay attention i used a word as "you" more then one  and these yous are someone except you. adressed person were not you. this situation shows you are a disrespect and unprincipled person. I don't know why do you act like this that actually is not requered but i think this is not my problem. therefore you are ignored. bye.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 06:09:01 AM by İntikam »

Haha, wow, this is way past stupid.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
I wrote this article by addressing a person. If you pay attention i used a word as "you" more then one  and these yous are someone except you. adressed person were not you. this situation shows you are a disrespect and unprincipled person. I don't know why do you act like this that actually is not requered but i think this is not my problem. therefore you are ignored. bye.
Welcome to the club Woody, "one of us, one of us!"

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
I wrote this article by addressing a person. If you pay attention i used a word as "you" more then one  and these yous are someone except you. adressed person were not you. this situation shows you are a disrespect and unprincipled person. I don't know why do you act like this that actually is not requered but i think this is not my problem. therefore you are ignored. bye.
Welcome to the club Woody, "one of us, one of us!"

Seems it is unprincipled to suggest researching something that may help in his understanding and work.

I like he thinks this is some form of punishment for me.


*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
I wrote this article by addressing a person. If you pay attention i used a word as "you" more then one  and these yous are someone except you. adressed person were not you. this situation shows you are a disrespect and unprincipled person. I don't know why do you act like this that actually is not requered but i think this is not my problem. therefore you are ignored. bye.

Such a child.  Can somebody NOT on the naughty list (if there is anyone left) please explain to him how a PUBLIC FORUM works?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile

Okay! Inti' your constant blanking of those that disagree with you is childish, if you cannot come to an open forum and debate with those who have differing views then why are you here, especially in this case when you clearly have something to learn.

Here is a clumsy analogy of the heat debate. If you go in the water (representing space) and there are piranhas (flesh eating fish that represent air molecules that are heated), If there are thousands in your vicinity you will come into contact regularly and feel the pain, if those same thousands were spread evenly throughout the whole ocean, contact would be unlikely. Now remember here that the ocean in this model is space, the area that the piranhas exist, and in this model cannot hold heat itself as it is the absence of stuff.

Going back to you saying that I said " it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle.". That is not what I meant, they are just so thinly spread out (it's the edge of the atmosphere) that contact is so small that any heat encountered is not in sufficient amounts (think running your hand swiftly through a flame) to heat you up.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

İntikam


Okay! Inti' your constant blanking of those that disagree with you is childish, if you cannot come to an open forum and debate with those who have differing views then why are you here, especially in this case when you clearly have something to learn.

Here is a clumsy analogy of the heat debate. If you go in the water (representing space) and there are piranhas (flesh eating fish that represent air molecules that are heated), If there are thousands in your vicinity you will come into contact regularly and feel the pain, if those same thousands were spread evenly throughout the whole ocean, contact would be unlikely. Now remember here that the ocean in this model is space, the area that the piranhas exist, and in this model cannot hold heat itself as it is the absence of stuff.

Going back to you saying that I said " it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle.". That is not what I meant, they are just so thinly spread out (it's the edge of the atmosphere) that contact is so small that any heat encountered is not in sufficient amounts (think running your hand swiftly through a flame) to heat you up.

I sense you thinking yourself as a teacher. If you, but not mine.

I did'nt ask anyone that may i come here or not. And nobody asker me if you accept which rules or not. This is a forum has some rules and all of my acts appropriate the forum rules. Everybody can write what he want, i can't stop them. But i have some principles differently from most of others. Everybody has a right to criticize me. meanwhile i have a right to ignore anybody who i want.

I told i have some principles and replying instead of anybody other is ugly behavior and who do that i'll ignore him. I'm doing it. So who want to continues to debate  me, get an answer to him questions, must respect my opinion. Who don't respect my opinion, i don't respect his opinion. Because of my principle is an eye for an eye, so don't respect to don't respect.

You don't respect my opinion so i don't respect your opinion , hereafter, you are ignored. bye.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile

Okay! Inti' your constant blanking of those that disagree with you is childish, if you cannot come to an open forum and debate with those who have differing views then why are you here, especially in this case when you clearly have something to learn.

Here is a clumsy analogy of the heat debate. If you go in the water (representing space) and there are piranhas (flesh eating fish that represent air molecules that are heated), If there are thousands in your vicinity you will come into contact regularly and feel the pain, if those same thousands were spread evenly throughout the whole ocean, contact would be unlikely. Now remember here that the ocean in this model is space, the area that the piranhas exist, and in this model cannot hold heat itself as it is the absence of stuff.

Going back to you saying that I said " it has a weak heating because of it is a weak particle.". That is not what I meant, they are just so thinly spread out (it's the edge of the atmosphere) that contact is so small that any heat encountered is not in sufficient amounts (think running your hand swiftly through a flame) to heat you up.

I sense you thinking yourself as a teacher. If you, but not mine.

I did'nt ask anyone that may i come here or not. And nobody asker me if you accept which rules or not. This is a forum has some rules and all of my acts appropriate the forum rules. Everybody can write what he want, i can't stop them. But i have some principles differently from most of others. Everybody has a right to criticize me. meanwhile i have a right to ignore anybody who i want.

I told i have some principles and replying instead of anybody other is ugly behavior and who do that i'll ignore him. I'm doing it. So who want to continues to debate  me, get an answer to him questions, must respect my opinion. Who don't respect my opinion, i don't respect his opinion. Because of my principle is an eye for an eye, so don't respect to don't respect.

You don't respect my opinion so i don't respect your opinion , hereafter, you are ignored. bye.
Hi İnti,
It's been a while since you responded to me, is everything ok?
I'm just letting you know that it's ok to disagree with other people, as they will surely disagree with you; however this is no reason to bury your head in the sand and sing "la-la-la-la".
Hope you are well, and looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Unsure101  ;D

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
I wrote this article by addressing a person. If you pay attention i used a word as "you" more then one  and these yous are someone except you. adressed person were not you. this situation shows you are a disrespect and unprincipled person. I don't know why do you act like this that actually is not requered but i think this is not my problem. therefore you are ignored. bye.

Such a child.  Can somebody NOT on the naughty list (if there is anyone left) please explain to him how a PUBLIC FORUM works?

Quote from: İntikam
You don't respect my opinion so i don't respect your opinion , hereafter, you are ignored. bye.

Now look what you made me do!

Quote from: My Mum
Respect is for those who deserve it, not those who demand it.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 11:27:10 AM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

İntikam

There is no one don't be ignored by me at this topic. If there is another one want to debate on this topic i'm waiting for a nurmal human. As everybody see that i can reply all of questions but who has principles and don't act as agressor.

My last post about this matter:

Quote
the temperature of 1000 celcius degrees  isn't a temperature of some particles. The temperature of 1000 celcius degrees is the average of all matter of the particles and the other spaces. It is not a temperature of some particles. For example actually the particles has about 5.000-10.000 or above temperatures if they are according to the density. If they have high density then they have near temperature to 1.000 celcius like 1500, 2000 celcius degrees likely. If they have low density, then they must high temperature like 10.000 , 20.000, or 50.000 celcius degrees temperature. Because the "average temperature" is stable, is equal about 1.000, so if the density of the materials decreasing, then the temperature of the materials increases.

If somebody have an idea about to answer my unresponsive questions except who isin't ignored by me, i'm waiting for an answer. If there isin't anybody can answer it to show me then this means there is no answer.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
You don't respect my opinion so i don't respect your opinion , hereafter, you are ignored. bye.

 ;D ;D Congratulations, and welcome to the club! ;D ;D

Hi İnti,
It's been a while since you responded to me, is everything ok?

You're on the naughty list, he won't see this.

There is no one don't be ignored by me at this topic.

Poor, sad, lonely little boy.  All alone in the park because no one will play with him.  Except that's wrong, isn't it?  The park is full of kids who would love to play!  It is HE who won't play with US, not the other way around.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice