Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

[hoi.polloi]

Heat (or thermal energy) is nothing but the motion of atoms and molecules. There is no external energy source in a vacuum that keeps this motion alive, hence the motion of the atoms decreases -- that is to say, it becomes cold.

Oh, right. No energy source in a vacuum ... except that inconvenient reticent orb known as the Sun. Let's distinguish between the "unlit" and "lit" parts of any given body in our solar system, shall we?

[anon1911]

Or have you forgotten the main NASA conclusion of this forum, which is that NONE of the footage of outer space is trustworthy?

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.

Since when am I bound to the main conclusion about NASA on this forum? I thought this forum was for people that make their own conclusions and don't follow some premade conclusions made by others.

Heat (or thermal energy) is nothing but the motion of atoms and molecules. There is no external energy source in a vacuum that keeps this motion alive, hence the motion of the atoms decreases -- that is to say, it becomes cold.

Oh, right. No energy source in a vacuum ... except that inconvenient reticent orb known as the Sun. Let's distinguish between the "unlit" and "lit" parts of any given body in our solar system, shall we?

I wasn't talking about space in particular.

The initial question was:

and how is a vacuum, or ‘nothing’, cold?

I merely tried to refer to a system of vacuum without any external energy source because scud gave me the impression that he didn't really untderstand what heat actually is.

Of course there is the sun. Approximately 120° in direct sunlight, -180° in shadow.

Now that I have answered scud's question, what am I supposed to make out of it?

[scud]

anon1911 wrote:
“I merely tried to refer to a system of vacuum without any external energy source because scud gave me the impression that he didn't really understand what heat actually is.”

...anon, I understand what heat is, what I don’t understand is why many don’t seem to think that it presents any kind of problem to either space travel or orbit in the higher layers of our atmosphere.

It’s universally recognised that Earth’s upper regions are ‘hot’...that means that the sparse molecules of air present, are responding in accordance to radiant energy levels from the Sun...



It’s ‘hot’ because it is the outer layers of insulation / protection, in other words, the higher one goes the more the sun’s energy is exposed and judging from NASA’s own graphic I fail to see how any inanimate object except those constructed from the most resistant of materials is going to survive altitudes much above 250 to 300k/m. Animate objects (including people in funny suits) a good deal less, because as we can see, there is the added inconvenience of penetrative / ionizing energy coming in the form of gamma, X rays and Extreme UV.

How is this all explained away to allow what is apparently routine? Simply the persuasion that rarified air, progressing to perfect vacuum is somehow a barrier to electromagnetic radiation as typically stated here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.”

This is utter tosh. The energy to heat these molecules be they ‘diluted‘ or concentrated (the ISS for instance) is coming in the form of light...right across the spectrum (the Sun constituting the entirety of which). A vacuum, perfect or partial offers no barrier to this whatsoever, in fact quite the contrary, it is the perfect / near perfect medium for travel.

I take a glass jar, suspend a thermometer in the centre, pump out all the air and chuck it into a blast furnace...expect this thermometer to be crystalized with ice, registering some sort of absurdly low, negative reading?...No, neither would I.

[fbenario]

Or have you forgotten the main NASA conclusion of this forum, which is that NONE of the footage of outer space is trustworthy?

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.

Since when am I bound to the main conclusion about NASA on this forum? I thought this forum was for people that make their own conclusions and don't follow some premade conclusions made by others.

So, you want to question one of the forum's main conclusions? That's fine, but then you're required to provide substantially convincing proof disproving that conclusion. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time with mental masturbation and a bunch of irrelevant 'what-ifs', and you won't be around for long.

[lux]

Heat (or thermal energy) is nothing but the motion of atoms and molecules. There is no external energy source in a vacuum that keeps this motion alive, hence the motion of the atoms decreases -- that is to say, it becomes cold.

The sun is not an external energy source?

[scud]

Apologies anon1911. A piece of your last post that I somehow missed...

Of course there is the sun. Approximately 120° in direct sunlight, -180° in shadow.

Could you please point to a reference for this information?

[fbenario]

I haven't heard of any impact at the moon, but we do have footage of an impact on jupiter.

No we don't.

Or have you forgotten the main NASA conclusion of this forum, which is that NONE of the footage of outer space is trustworthy?

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.

We're still waiting for your explanation, WITH PROOF. Your continued silence makes clear your bad faith participation here.

[anon1911]

The sun is not an external energy source?

Please read my previous post.

Could you please point to a reference for this information?

I did gather my information from various sources.

One of these was this website:
http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

I will try to respond to your last post (the long one) in a while. Let me do some research first.

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.

In the meanwhile I'm waiting for your explanation, WITH PROOF, that the footage I linked to does not show what it purports to show us.

Your continued silence makes clear your bad faith participation here.

I'm not going to be online 24/7 just because you want me to and I honestly don't care about what is clear to you. Also, this is not what this thread is about, so stay ontopic please.

[simonshack]

I'm not going to be online 24/7 just because you want me to and I honestly don't care about what is clear to you. Also, this is not what this thread is about, so stay ontopic please.

Anon1911,

I honestly don't think any of the readers of this forum will miss you - what with your vapid contributions, arrogant behavior and reluctance to answer clear questions submitted to you. Bye.

[lux]

RT reports that a 1kg piece of the Russian meteor has been found.

[edgewaters]

It’s universally recognised that Earth’s upper regions are ‘hot’...that means that the sparse molecules of air present, are responding in accordance to radiant energy levels from the Sun...

It's hardly "universally recognized" in fact quite the opposite. It's uinversally recognized to be very cold at upper altitudes and it's readily apparent to the eyes. Mountains above a certain altitude are topped with snow even in tropical areas ... year-round, if they're high enough. They even have a treeline just like the Arctic. If what you said were true, then it would be the reverse: glaciers in temperate regions would more readily reside in low-lying areas rather than among mountains, mountaintops would be covered in tropical jungles even in Russia, and people climbing Mount Everest would wear shorts and a t-shirt rather than Arctic gear.

[scud]

edgewaters

I don't think you've read my post properly...we're not talking 'mountain tops' but several hundred kilometres above; you know, where 'space-ships' are meant to reside...and beyond this, the environment where life threatening 'balls of ice' supposedly exist (so threatening in fact, that thanks to Lux's link we find that the Russian's are prepared to spend $2Bn of their citizens money 'protecting them against'... http://www.rt.com/news/russia-billions- ... ction-502/ ).

Don't take my word for it, raise your altitude to appropriate levels and see what you come up with...'cold' it isn't.

[edgewaters]

Ah sorry ... I wasn't aware that the rules of physics change somewhere between the mountaintops and the upper atmosphere.

It's pretty obvious that higher = colder anyone can see that it does. Unless you're saying that the physics changes halfway up or something.

Russian spaceballs I'm not sure but just because they peddle some ludicrous story doesn't prove it gets hotter as you go up, in complete defiance of what the naked eye can see.

[rusty]

Ah sorry ... I wasn't aware that the rules of physics change somewhere between the mountaintops and the upper atmosphere.
It's pretty obvious that higher = colder anyone can see that it does. Unless you're saying that the physics changes halfway up or something.

Source: Wikedpedia, it must be correct!

So it gets hotter quite precisely from 100km upwards

[edgewaters]

Source: Wikedpedia, it must be correct!

Must it? More correct than what everyone's eyes can see for themselves when they look up to a mountaintop?

You still fail to explain this simple fact.