-
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
-
Temperatures at sea level cannot be compared with temperatures at those altitudes.
-
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.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160623%20-%20Space%20Shuttle%20Tile%20Demonstration_zpsiikadnzo.jpg)
See the video at: Space Shuttle Tile Demonstration (https://youtu.be/Pp9Yax8UNoM)
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!
-
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.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160623%20-%20Space%20Shuttle%20Tile%20Demonstration_zpsiikadnzo.jpg)
See the video at: Space Shuttle Tile Demonstration (https://youtu.be/Pp9Yax8UNoM)
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.
-
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 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=oigehugjqsu84fv9aftojga983&topic=66533.msg1774330#msg1774330")
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Haha, wow, this is way past stupid.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
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!
Respect is for those who deserve it, not those who demand it.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes you do have the right to ignore anyone you choose but the question has got to be asked...
Why are you on the debate portion of the FE site if you don't want to debate? You count everyone who disagrees with you as an aggressor or enemy. Maybe you would be better served in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish if you stayed on the portion of the site where the readers will simply agree with you.
-
Why are you on the debate portion of the FE site if you don't want to debate?
Literally logged in just to say this.
Seriously Inti, this is the debate forum, meaning we debate. If you want to post something as "fact" without anyone to disagree or argue the point, don't bring it into the debate forum.
-
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.
Yes you do have the right to ignore anyone you choose but the question has got to be asked...
Why are you on the debate portion of the FE site if you don't want to debate? You count everyone who disagrees with you as an aggressor or enemy. Maybe you would be better served in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish if you stayed on the portion of the site where the readers will simply agree with you.
I told her the answer but you are answering instead of her. I'm debating who debate to me but if someone answers a question istead of anybody other, i see that as rudeness and ignoring. I had a chance to choice whom i want to debate or not. I'm only debating principled and honest ones. I'm ignoring rude and unscrupulous ones.
Your quote was not your question. Now you will be ignored but not for debating me, just impolite.
I don't know why don't you want to understand this is easy understandable principle.
-
This is great.
Post something in the debate forum.
Claim you want to debate.
People make counter arguments.
Call them unprincipled and block them. Instead of making a counter argument.
If this is not an example of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying'"la,la,la.....", I do not know what is.
-
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.
Yes you do have the right to ignore anyone you choose but the question has got to be asked...
Why are you on the debate portion of the FE site if you don't want to debate? You count everyone who disagrees with you as an aggressor or enemy. Maybe you would be better served in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish if you stayed on the portion of the site where the readers will simply agree with you.
I told her the answer but you are answering instead of her. I'm debating who debate to me but if someone answers a question istead of anybody other, i see that as rudeness and ignoring. I had a chance to choice whom i want to debate or not. I'm only debating principled and honest ones. I'm ignoring rude and unscrupulous ones.
Your quote was not your question. Now you will be ignored but not for debating me, just impolite.
I don't know why don't you want to understand this is easy understandable principle.
Sorry, but on an open forum you debate whoever feels competent to answer! Learn the rules and stop being so touchy!
-
YES!
I MADE THE LIST!
8) ;D 8)
-
There is no user can reply the question.
If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1.000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.
To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2.000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2.000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.
Now look to thermosphere.
Thermosphere is about 1.000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?
Question:
if a matter have 2.000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1.000 degrees celcius.
the answer is "about" 2.000 x 1.000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.
Result:
The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2.000.000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.
Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.
-
There is no user can reply the question.
You have ignored everyone who has answered your question.
Seriously, get a grip dude!
-
There is no user can reply the question.
If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1.000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.
To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2.000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2.000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.
Now look to thermosphere.
Thermosphere is about 1.000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?
Question:
if a matter have 2.000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1.000 degrees celcius.
the answer is "about" 2.000 x 1.000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.
Result:
The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2.000.000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.
Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.
Hello
Who are you talking to ?
-
There is no user can reply the question.
If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1.000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.
To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2.000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2.000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.
Now look to thermosphere.
Thermosphere is about 1.000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?
Question:
if a matter have 2.000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1.000 degrees celcius.
the answer is "about" 2.000 x 1.000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.
Result:
The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2.000.000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.
Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.
Hello
Who are you talking to ?
This question is not about issue. Is somebody forced you to write something nonsence? So ignore. Bye.
-
Hello
Who are you talking to ?
This question is not about issue. Is somebody forced you to write something nonsence? So ignore. Bye.
Man, the threshold for getting ignored gets lower and lower!
Welcome to the Naughty List, Antonio!
-
YES!
I MADE THE LIST!
8) ;D 8)
Me, too !
-
YES!
I MADE THE LIST!
8) ;D 8)
Me, too !
Stop gloating, I'm still "enemy #1"!
8) ;D 8) 8) ;D 8)
That sickly colour is supposed to be Gold! Maybe we could getget him to rotate the list, so we can all have a turn at being "numero uno"!
-
I too have made it onto Inti's list. Heck, I did it with such grandois that he didn't even reply to tell me. XD
Even though I'm being ignored I'll throw out a laymans response.
Take 2 glasses, one filled with water and one without. Place a thermometer in each glass. Then place an ice cube in each glass. Wait ten minutes and record tempurature change for each glass. The glass with water should be colder than the one without.
That is a demonstration of how density effects transmission of heat. The air in the thermosphere is ridiculously thin, and so the heat can hardly transfer to the spacecraft.
-
I too have made it onto Inti's list. Heck, I did it with such grandois that he didn't even reply to tell me. XD
Even though I'm being ignored I'll throw out a laymans response.
Take 2 glasses, one filled with water and one without. Place a thermometer in each glass. Then place an ice cube in each glass. Wait ten minutes and record tempurature change for each glass. The glass with water should be colder than the one without.
That is a demonstration of how density effects transmission of heat. The air in the thermosphere is ridiculously thin, and so the heat can hardly transfer to the spacecraft.
I suppose you saw his latest effort!
There is no user can reply the question.
If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1,000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.
To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2,000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2,000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.
Now look to thermosphere.
Thermosphere is about 1,000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?
Question:
if a matter have 2,000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1,000 degrees celcius.
the answer is "about" 2,000 x 1,000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.
Result:
The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2,000,000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.
Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.
Actually we should encourage İntikam as much as possible - this makes the Flat Earth Society a complete laughing stock to anyone with any common sense.
Go for it İntikam, you are doing a wonderful job of making the Globe Earth look the only reasonable alternative!
-
There is no user can reply the question.
If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1.000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.
To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2.000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2.000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.
Now look to thermosphere.
Thermosphere is about 1.000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?
Question:
if a matter have 2.000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1.000 degrees celcius.
the answer is "about" 2.000 x 1.000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.
Result:
The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2.000.000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.
Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.
Regarding this idea and your signature line...
Propose an idea worthy of respect and maybe, just maybe, others would respect it.
Does your idea of particles in the thermosphere reaching 2 million degrees Celsius rely on Tom magical magnification theory?
An oxy welder operating at 2,000 degrees Celsius only raises the temperature of a room by one degree (your statement) yet it somehow raises the temperature of a single particle to 2 million degrees?
How does this work exactly?
How many oxy welders are floating around in the thermosphere?
What mechanism of FE keeps them up there?
Why does your logic not apply to the room in which the oxy welder originated? You stated the room started out at 22 degrees C and was only raised by 1 degree C. By the logic of your idea and the math you applied to it, the rise in temperature should be equivalent to what you stated about the thermosphere in that the starting temperature should be multiplied by 2,000 degrees C. This would give the room a final temperature of 44,000 degrees C. This room, through the operation of a simple oxy welder, would be almost 8 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
-
So I come back to this.
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 put this earlier in the post where you banned me for disrespect, but you didn't answer this part.
-
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:
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.
The air is extremely thin at that altitude.
For example, air at ground level that is 130F (54C) and a pot of water that is 130F (54C). Which one feels hotter?
-
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:
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.
The air is extremely thin at that altitude.
For example, air at ground level that is 130F (54C) and a pot of water that is 130F (54C). Which one feels hotter?
Same.
-
So I come back to this.
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 put this earlier in the post where you banned me for disrespect, but you didn't answer this part.
I'll turn you next a few days. I was on holliday and today i returned. Sunday is sunday. :) So see you later.
-
Re: Nasa debunk: As a little hell an atmospheric layer; thermosphere! (1600 c temp)
« Reply #39 on: Today at 11:41:21 AM »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5130.msg100776#msg100776)
-
So I come back to this.
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 put this earlier in the post where you banned me for disrespect, but you didn't answer this part.
I'm telling that there is a probability you are true. But for those, some of institution must prove it is possible to pass the thermosphere with not cooked, by create same conditions on the lab on land. Its like enter into a furnace. There is no water inside the furnace but cooks what stayed in to it. I do not remember such an experiment and i don't think so it is possible.
-
So I come back to this.
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 put this earlier in the post where you banned me for disrespect, but you didn't answer this part.
I'm telling that there is a probability you are true. But for those, some of institution must prove it is possible to pass the thermosphere with not cooked, by create same conditions on the lab on land. Its like enter into a furnace. There is no water inside the furnace but cooks what stayed in to it. I do not remember such an experiment and i don't think so it is possible.
You deny rockets, satellites and space exploration.
Would someone please explain to me how we learnt about the Thermosphere, the Van Allen Belts and much of the information about the ionosphere?
The answer to this is simply that most of the modern data about these regions comes from sounding rockets and satellites, many launched or supplied by NASA.
So stop being a hypocrit and accept the rest of the data about those extreme altitude zones.
Now even at "100 kilometers the air density is about 1/2,200,000 the density on the surface". At 100 km altitude the temperature is little above that at sea-level, yet even here there is not enough air to conduct heat to any object.
This chart indicates how temperature and density (as molecules/m3) vary with altitude.
(http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cairns/teaching/lecture16/img12.gif)
Figure 16.1: Variations in the density and temperature of Earth's
neutral atmosphere with altitude [Abell, 1982].
From: Earth's Atmosphere (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cairns/teaching/lecture16/node2.html)
So, it is quite clear that where the temperature is so high there is simply too little matter to heat up any object, so these claims of
"As a little hell an atmospheric layer; thermosphere! (1600 c temp)" are quite baseless.
-
So I come back to this.
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 put this earlier in the post where you banned me for disrespect, but you didn't answer this part.
I'm sorry but i don't understand the problem. I'm saying my english is not so good but you are not take into account or nobody approached to teach it. :)
All of my sides turned by Olga, Lena, Svetlana, Anna. If i want to learn to Russian it is really easy to learn but English is hard because there is no english teacher here good and reliable.