Genuine question

  • 71 Replies
  • 5234 Views
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2016, 12:19:51 PM »
You guys act like satellites are the only way to communicate. We where communicating long before satellites were thought of. I have my doubts it is all because I have seen many thing that leads me to believe that way. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right, but I'm not going to rule out that there are many other ways to do something.

If you don't rule things out, how do you propose to arrive at a conclusion? Eventually you'll have to look at what is likely, not just what's theoretically possible.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2016, 01:15:27 PM »
You guys act like satellites are the only way to communicate. We where communicating long before satellites were thought of. I have my doubts it is all because I have seen many thing that leads me to believe that way. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right, but I'm not going to rule out that there are many other ways to do something.

If you don't rule things out, how do you propose to arrive at a conclusion? Eventually you'll have to look at what is likely, not just what's theoretically possible.

I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2016, 10:13:15 PM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2016, 08:04:29 AM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

I'm sure you have moved forward on gravity for instance. It is my guess you believe what you were taught in school, maybe Cavendish experiment and you haven't ruled out other possibilities? I'm I correct?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2016, 08:22:58 AM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

I'm sure you have moved forward on gravity for instance. It is my guess you believe what you were taught in school, maybe Cavendish experiment and you haven't ruled out other possibilities? I'm I correct?

But then it would be weird for me to say that I am convinced. I was talking about things you actively try to find out about, not the unquestioned background of information we all implicitly assume in daily life. Simply accepting what you are told does not, of course, require any method. Findung out for yourself does.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2016, 08:53:14 AM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

I'm sure you have moved forward on gravity for instance. It is my guess you believe what you were taught in school, maybe Cavendish experiment and you haven't ruled out other possibilities? I'm I correct?

But then it would be weird for me to say that I am convinced. I was talking about things you actively try to find out about, not the unquestioned background of information we all implicitly assume in daily life. Simply accepting what you are told does not, of course, require any method. Findung out for yourself does.

That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

sokarul

  • 17155
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2016, 09:02:56 AM »
People are well aware of the term "theory". Thanks though.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2016, 10:33:39 AM »
People are well aware of the term "theory". Thanks though.

You don't go on as if it is a fact?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

sokarul

  • 17155
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2016, 10:57:25 AM »
People are well aware of the term "theory". Thanks though.

You don't go on as if it is a fact?
No and I don't know where a theory is presented as such.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2016, 11:51:30 AM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2016, 12:22:31 PM »
People are well aware of the term "theory". Thanks though.

You don't go on as if it is a fact?
No and I don't know where a theory is presented as such.

So, you are saying satellites orbiting the earth may not be a fact in your opinion. Because the only way they can is based on gravity and you just said you don't go on or know where a theory is presented as fact. It sounds like you and I agree on the same thing. I don't know satellites orbit the earth either.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2016, 12:32:03 PM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2016, 01:09:35 AM »
Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.

That's a deflection tactic I haven't seen before.

But yes, it is blindingly obvious that what you do is try to find evidence to back up your beliefs, rather then adjusting your beliefs to fit the evidence.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2016, 05:39:58 PM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.

He's probably busy with the other forum. And that's a moot point. You have us to argue with.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2016, 05:01:14 AM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.

He's probably busy with the other forum. And that's a moot point. You have us to argue with.

No, I have been on this forum almost exclusively as of late. However, have been focusing too much time attempting to rid a virus (code name heiwa) from this forum for the greater good lol.

I have checked in on this from time to time though. However, I am a bit confused on where to chime in at. It seems the conversation as of late as became a bit circular. What are we debating now? Is it the difference of a theory and fact? Is it how to determine theory vs fact? Maintaining an open mind? What determines valid "evidence"?

I ask this for when I read everything posted, it seems people are speaking but not really listening. The statement/retort seems not to match with each other.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2016, 07:16:33 AM »
That is the problem, we assume too much because we have it shoved down our throats. All physics textbook should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Or better yet, teach basic philosophy in school so you don't need the disclaimer in the first place. You also get the added benefit of a young generation that knows basic theories on reason and morality.

But this is really an aside to the point I was trying to make. Did I get across how making guesses and then trying to find ways to rule them out is important in the search for knowledge?

Where is babyhighspeed, he started this thread? He should be part of the debate.

The things I find difficult to believe I try to find evidence to back up my beliefs.

He's probably busy with the other forum. And that's a moot point. You have us to argue with.

No, I have been on this forum almost exclusively as of late. However, have been focusing too much time attempting to rid a virus (code name heiwa) from this forum for the greater good lol.

I have checked in on this from time to time though. However, I am a bit confused on where to chime in at. It seems the conversation as of late as became a bit circular. What are we debating now? Is it the difference of a theory and fact? Is it how to determine theory vs fact? Maintaining an open mind? What determines valid "evidence"?

I ask this for when I read everything posted, it seems people are speaking but not really listening. The statement/retort seems not to match with each other.

What you witness here is typical for the way these forums go. When you get a few people involved making different points the debate can go many different way all at once. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. Usually the debate does go off track from the intent of the OP. That is why I asked for you to come back in and kick our butts and get us back on track of you original post. If that doesn't happen then eventually everyone gets frustrated and drops out and the post dies.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2016, 07:36:38 AM »

What you witness here is typical for the way these forums go. When you get a few people involved making different points the debate can go many different way all at once. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. Usually the debate does go off track from the intent of the OP. That is why I asked for you to come back in and kick our butts and get us back on track of you original post. If that doesn't happen then eventually everyone gets frustrated and drops out and the post dies.

Fair enough and good observation. I don't even mind a derailment if the topic is strong enough. It just seems like everyone was talking about something different all at once. So we should either focus on one topic at once like what determines "evidence", how you should treat " evidence", how open the mind should be, how theories should be treated. These are the main ones I picked up on this thread.

Or it can be returned to the original purpose of this thread. How is my experience in private sector aerospace, alone with other like me explained? I am open to any topics, we will just have to avoid the attention deficit disorder that keeps happening ha ha.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM »

What you witness here is typical for the way these forums go. When you get a few people involved making different points the debate can go many different way all at once. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. Usually the debate does go off track from the intent of the OP. That is why I asked for you to come back in and kick our butts and get us back on track of you original post. If that doesn't happen then eventually everyone gets frustrated and drops out and the post dies.

Fair enough and good observation. I don't even mind a derailment if the topic is strong enough. It just seems like everyone was talking about something different all at once. So we should either focus on one topic at once like what determines "evidence", how you should treat " evidence", how open the mind should be, how theories should be treated. These are the main ones I picked up on this thread.

Or it can be returned to the original purpose of this thread. How is my experience in private sector aerospace, alone with other like me explained? I am open to any topics, we will just have to avoid the attention deficit disorder that keeps happening ha ha.

I worked for an RF company as an engineer designing electronic components for twenty years. Some of the components I designed did go in satellites.  I never did think they didn't go where I was told. I designed them that way. All the components were RAD hardened and screened to 883 level. Vigorous testing as always performed before we could ship the product. Now that I'm retired and I have time to think and research about it I'm not so sure they ever did go into space. We are told a lot of the satellites live in the thermosphere where it can get to 2,000oC or 3,632oF. I know that not much can withstand that temperature. Wikipedia reasoning why the aluminum doesn't melt is, "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." If that is the case, how can the radiated heat from the sun reach earth? Also, a lot of these satellites create a lot of heat themselves. If they can't expel that heat into space, because they are in a vacuum with very few atoms, why wouldn't they over heat and the electronic components stop working? Most power supplies will shut down when they over heat. I have a hunch that what is built and said is a satellite is not a satellite at all but equipment that is on board some sort of high altitude platform that stays in the stratosphere and functions just like a satellite would. Companies like Lockheed Martin are heavily into these things.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-vehicles/haa.html
If you research HAPs you will find that they are talking about using these to replace satellites in the future as if they just now thought how much better and cheaper they will be then satellites. The fact is they have been around for ever and ECHO 1 was used in the early 60's to bounce communications off of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
I've said enough for now. These are my thoughts and I could very well be wrong.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

sokarul

  • 17155
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2016, 10:11:55 AM »
You claim to have designed circuits but you don't know there are three types of heat transfer?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2016, 10:25:10 AM »
I worked for an RF company as an engineer designing electronic components for twenty years. Some of the components I designed did go in satellites.  I never did think they didn't go where I was told. I designed them that way. All the components were RAD hardened and screened to 883 level. Vigorous testing as always performed before we could ship the product. Now that I'm retired and I have time to think and research about it I'm not so sure they ever did go into space. We are told a lot of the satellites live in the thermosphere where it can get to 2,000oC or 3,632oF. I know that not much can withstand that temperature. Wikipedia reasoning why the aluminum doesn't melt is, "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." If that is the case, how can the radiated heat from the sun reach earth? Also, a lot of these satellites create a lot of heat themselves. If they can't expel that heat into space, because they are in a vacuum with very few atoms, why wouldn't they over heat and the electronic components stop working? Most power supplies will shut down when they over heat. I have a hunch that what is built and said is a satellite is not a satellite at all but equipment that is on board some sort of high altitude platform that stays in the stratosphere and functions just like a satellite would. Companies like Lockheed Martin are heavily into these things.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-vehicles/haa.html
If you research HAPs you will find that they are talking about using these to replace satellites in the future as if they just now thought how much better and cheaper they will be then satellites. The fact is they have been around for ever and ECHO 1 was used in the early 60's to bounce communications off of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
I've said enough for now. These are my thoughts and I could very well be wrong.

Really?  Your original problem with satellites is that they would overheat in the thermosphere?

As you said, there are too few atoms of gas to transfer heat.  For that reason, the chief heating factor is radiation, not conduction.  Heat from the sun arrives in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which doesn't need a medium to travel through.  Spacecraft are built to withstand this and expel heat through radiators and sublimators.  Even if they didn't have these, they still wouldn't reach 2000C.  They have a value called albedo, which is the fraction of reflected light.  Also, since they are made of a large amount of atoms, the side exposed to the sun has its heat conducted away to the rest of the spacecraft.  This is different from the particles in the atmosphere, which are singular and only take a very small amount of energy to gain a large temperature value. 
Remember, if you're willing to ask questions, we're more than willing to help you find answers.  You'll be amazed at how coherent aerospace and science actually are. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2016, 12:17:26 PM »
Well I can not speak for the electronics themselves as that is not what I did during that time. However, I can speak for the electronics shielding, and the shielding of the bird itself. At even 1000 degrees Celsius it loses 60 percent of its rigidity (the challenge is getting it there with convection or radiation).I hated worked with this crap, I had to TIG every damn thing, so it was a slow process, even then you just blink and it's got a hole. The laser cutter hates the material, the plasma eats it for lunch. Think of it like aluminum foil, 5 times thicker and 10 times more annoying. You turn one spot light on it though you can damn near light the shop up.

Heat in space radiates such as the sun does, even if it comes from a source like a power supply or computer module. It depends on the material. Just for example that shielding I was speaking about, it could damn near hit 5000 Watts. You could get it hot, and as soon as you put the tool down to touch it , it was room temp again (this is a reason you can grab tin foil out of the oven bare handed)  It all depends on the metal, send some cast iron up there (about 200 watts) and watch it glow lol. The body I believe is about 900watts of heat dissipation.

Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 12:20:14 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2016, 12:24:41 PM »
Also when deciding metal thickness for combustion chambers, fuel lines, the turbo/piston pumps, slave feeders, and especially the fuel storage tanks. Heat dissipation was always more of a concern than problem over heat accumulation.

It would be sad if all my stuff I have sold is burried in the hills of the Terlingua desert with everything else aerospace lol.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2016, 01:02:01 PM »
I worked for an RF company as an engineer designing electronic components for twenty years. Some of the components I designed did go in satellites.  I never did think they didn't go where I was told. I designed them that way. All the components were RAD hardened and screened to 883 level. Vigorous testing as always performed before we could ship the product. Now that I'm retired and I have time to think and research about it I'm not so sure they ever did go into space. We are told a lot of the satellites live in the thermosphere where it can get to 2,000oC or 3,632oF. I know that not much can withstand that temperature. Wikipedia reasoning why the aluminum doesn't melt is, "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." If that is the case, how can the radiated heat from the sun reach earth? Also, a lot of these satellites create a lot of heat themselves. If they can't expel that heat into space, because they are in a vacuum with very few atoms, why wouldn't they over heat and the electronic components stop working? Most power supplies will shut down when they over heat. I have a hunch that what is built and said is a satellite is not a satellite at all but equipment that is on board some sort of high altitude platform that stays in the stratosphere and functions just like a satellite would. Companies like Lockheed Martin are heavily into these things.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-vehicles/haa.html
If you research HAPs you will find that they are talking about using these to replace satellites in the future as if they just now thought how much better and cheaper they will be then satellites. The fact is they have been around for ever and ECHO 1 was used in the early 60's to bounce communications off of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
I've said enough for now. These are my thoughts and I could very well be wrong.

Really?  Your original problem with satellites is that they would overheat in the thermosphere?

As you said, there are too few atoms of gas to transfer heat.  For that reason, the chief heating factor is radiation, not conduction.  Heat from the sun arrives in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which doesn't need a medium to travel through.  Spacecraft are built to withstand this and expel heat through radiators and sublimators.  Even if they didn't have these, they still wouldn't reach 2000C.  They have a value called albedo, which is the fraction of reflected light.  Also, since they are made of a large amount of atoms, the side exposed to the sun has its heat conducted away to the rest of the spacecraft.  This is different from the particles in the atmosphere, which are singular and only take a very small amount of energy to gain a large temperature value. 
Remember, if you're willing to ask questions, we're more than willing to help you find answers.  You'll be amazed at how coherent aerospace and science actually are.

The solar panels which are on these satellites would barely function even if they could stay together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photo-voltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42oC, and at 1414oC silicon actually melts.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2016, 01:03:48 PM »

Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.

I havn't been up there too, but that sounds rather like intergalactical space vacuum. According to the NASA Satanists, of course.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2016, 01:18:03 PM »


The solar panels which are on these satellites would barely function even if they could stay together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photo-voltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42oC, and at 1414oC silicon actually melts.

I can vouch for these stats, I still make moveable power brackets for a solar power provider in Peru. I remember speaking of these numbers during idol conversation over the phone, as well as with an account I had in Texas before the Obama charity ran dry for energy. They had to account for areas that got past a certain temp and elevation. In Texas some areas would get to 120 degrees f, the panel would get to 200f plus during peak day hours, so they had to calculate that when designing systems for houses.

I can't speak for building panels, as I never have. I also don't know how fast that material radiates heat in a vacuum. It's a valid question.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2016, 01:55:09 PM »
Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.
That's way, way off.  Even in interstellar space, there's still about 1 molecule per cubic centimeter.  In interplanetary space, there is about 10 molecules per cm3, and the best vacuum we've been able to achieve here on earth is 100 molecules per cm3.  It's much higher in earth orbit. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2016, 02:34:31 PM »
Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.
That's way, way off.  Even in interstellar space, there's still about 1 molecule per cubic centimeter.  In interplanetary space, there is about 10 molecules per cm3, and the best vacuum we've been able to achieve here on earth is 100 molecules per cm3.  It's much higher in earth orbit.

Yes I agree it's my fault for not communicating in my head what I was trying to say. Also I have never heard an exact measure in deep space for the amount of atoms per cubic meter, it is usually just a "few" however many that is. I also believe in deep space there is only hydrogen atoms and not molecules... (I believe)

What I meant to say I should have elaborated, in the exosphere that is supposedly the average contact point between each molecule (kilometer)And I believe it is somewhere around a football field or so in the lower orbits. Apparently these molecules are not spread equally when the air is that thin, more so like "patches" for the lack of a better word. How heat buildup and drag is calculated.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 02:37:53 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2016, 02:54:19 PM »
Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.
That's way, way off.  Even in interstellar space, there's still about 1 molecule per cubic centimeter.  In interplanetary space, there is about 10 molecules per cm3, and the best vacuum we've been able to achieve here on earth is 100 molecules per cm3.  It's much higher in earth orbit.

Yes I agree it's my fault for not communicating in my head what I was trying to say. Also I have never heard an exact measure in deep space for the amount of atoms per cubic meter, it is usually just a "few" however many that is. I also believe in deep space there is only hydrogen atoms and not molecules... (I believe)

What I meant to say I should have elaborated, in the exosphere that is supposedly the average contact point between each molecule (kilometer)And I believe it is somewhere around a football field or so in the lower orbits. Apparently these molecules are not spread equally when the air is that thin, more so like "patches" for the lack of a better word. How heat buildup and drag is calculated.
I don't think the distribution ever gets that low.  Minimum is about 1 particle per cubic meter in intergalactic space. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10806
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2016, 03:36:12 PM »
Also as you said, even at low earth orbit I think it's a half km or so between each molecule, high orbit they are many kilometers apart. However, this is all based off specs we are taught, until I get my own ass or my rocket up there, we can never say 100 percent.
That's way, way off.  Even in interstellar space, there's still about 1 molecule per cubic centimeter.  In interplanetary space, there is about 10 molecules per cm3, and the best vacuum we've been able to achieve here on earth is 100 molecules per cm3.  It's much higher in earth orbit.

Yes I agree it's my fault for not communicating in my head what I was trying to say. Also I have never heard an exact measure in deep space for the amount of atoms per cubic meter, it is usually just a "few" however many that is. I also believe in deep space there is only hydrogen atoms and not molecules... (I believe)

What I meant to say I should have elaborated, in the exosphere that is supposedly the average contact point between each molecule (kilometer)And I believe it is somewhere around a football field or so in the lower orbits. Apparently these molecules are not spread equally when the air is that thin, more so like "patches" for the lack of a better word. How heat buildup and drag is calculated.
I don't think the distribution ever gets that low.  Minimum is about 1 particle per cubic meter in intergalactic space.

I agree with you....if it was averaged out. However, from what I was told in generalized conversation with previous clients was that the hydrogen atoms traveled in patches. Like gnats, if you spread them out over miles it might only be a couple per square foot. However, the way they travel, they travel in swarms, so may walk 50 feet before running into a 1000 of them, then another 50 feet of free space. This is just what I have been told by previous clients in the past.

Hell I just built stuff to the specs they gave me, or anything I designed it was built to resist the tolerances that was given, and tested before hand to resist said variables.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 53
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter hand
Re: Genuine question
« Reply #59 on: May 02, 2016, 02:47:26 PM »
I am sorry, but I did not read your whole wall of text.  I did skim over the first half, though.  Money and power and riches are a great motivator, would you not agree?

I was going to say that right after I started his third paragraph.

To semi quote a video I saw that explained the flat earth broken down into nine parts, each a different evidence (keep in mind OP I haven't yet read your wall of text either)

So around 500 years ago, the science community, lead by Copernicus, who probably had a little help. Introduced the Heliocentric or globe model of the world. Which in turn changed the solar system, galaxy, and so on. The Religions, seeing that this globe model was gaining popularity feared a loss in their fan base, so they all adopted and adapted their religion to include the globe model. From their point of view it was a small change to a circular, to a globe model. In a few generation, who would remember any way. So the churches, mosquse, and other places of religion wrapped up this little flat earth model and kept it somewhere with all the fine silver (For safe keeping).

Don't worry, we are getting to the point.

Eventually hundreds of years went by. And science, promoting all the aspects of the globe , and the religions promoting their beliefs upon this globe, the world kept spinning (so to speak) and THEN in the early 1900's you get this pesky explorer named Richard Byrd. He has family money all the right connections and basically unlimited funding, and the government green light to explore basically every piece of unseen territory up to that point. It was eventually inevitable I guess that there would eventually be a young man who has an unquenchable desire to see everything there is to see. He pulls a Truman and gets lucky. He passes the vast salt ocean. Avoids the ice burgs. Ariving at the frozen coast line. He keeps going, and he was never going to stop. One day after crossing hundreds of miles of high altitude ice and snow. Admiral Byrd see it. A barrier, and to him, its just a barrier, not "the barrier." This thing streatches so far the eye can see and so high up that he can't discover the begging of the arch. The great explorer now has a new challenge, finding the shape of this thing.


Now, if you look at the flat earth map, you know of the edge, and exploring this edge for Admiral Byrd would have taken months, if not years, and you can send two ships on oposite directions (or planes) but in order to do this there are refuling stations that NEED be built, and so on. This task was challenging to say the least. This guy kept laying the ground work of his discovery until his eventual death in 1957. One year later the US and Russia found the upper edge. FROM THERE the math was relatively easy. And of course, you could actually see the real world. Then from here there is the decision. OR deception. Depending on how you look at it. The authority made the call the hide the shape of where we live. Then sealed off the outer edge from prying eyes and created the space program not only to reinforce the globe model but to control it. There was really only one reason they cared about this, so lets look at the intimidate effects of actual disclosure then work our way up to the authorities biggest fear.

Instead of imagining the 1958 world finding out this info, for practical reasons, lets look at the effects of what would happen if this info was released today. While 1958 would have been easier, its much more relevant (and entertaining) to talk about today.

We start with a press conference by lets say the UN who have discovered that the world is indeed enclosed in a giant high tech dome. Of unknown origin and age. The public reacts with wonder and awe trying to take in the sheer scope of this announcement. All major mobile networks crash. It would be like hitting a be hive with a sledge hammer. News organizations all around the world send TEAMS to confirm the discovery. General public are glued to media devices. This is the good news, excitement, revelation. The "positive shock." Then the bad news starts coming in waves. Some of which we might not expect. First. IMMEDIATE BANNING OF NASA INCLUDING ALL OTHER WORLD SPACE ORGANIZATIONS. For obvious reasons lol
Most governments would secretly pardon these institutions and keep them immune from any class action lawsuits. Most coming from NASA investment groups claiming fraud. Regardless everyone at nass despite their good intentions is out of a job overnight. This is where you would say good they deserve it about time they stopped lying to everyone. But it doesn't stop there because every contractor and sub contractor that are exlusively tied to nasa they all have to shut down as well. Fine a few thousands people are out of jobs. No big deal. Ripples continue to spread. Some bigger than others. Observatories all over the world close their doors for good. The reasoning; if you have been looking at the ceiling for decades this whole time and couldn't tell it was a ceiling, than what good are you? Every university in the world that has an astronomy or astrophysics progarm, well they don't any more. Stephen Hawking, his book writing days are over. Carl Sagan, no more Nova. Professors all over are going to have to re-tool their skills, and be prepared to answer one giant question. How did you not see it. People start finger pointing. It would continue for years.
Fellow flat earthers would say "so what, so some Nerds lose their jobs."

You don't get off that easy. Figer pointing at defunct nasa would turn into finger pointing at the governments of the world, who directed the WHOLE THING this  where you run into dangerious ground where you run into the ark of the covenant the holly grail and the you guess it THE FLAT EARTH THEORY. All FIVE MAIN RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD OF WHICH BELIEVED IN None of which have been able to produce a supernatrual object for five hundred years. Trust me, ark benefits Judaism grail Christianity

You know the separation of government and religion NO MORE MY FRIEND religon now pulls out that theory they all had out from the fine silver cabinet,that may have been forgotten but not lost and BOOM and say we knew it all along and science lied to us, who has been only moderatly weaked by the loss of their astronomy and astrophysics division. But people don't care because no one yells louder than the church, they will scream with richious fury that the dome and the earth we live on was built they their god, your god. People will turn to science and hear nothing, and that is where the world changes. Because in times of great stress the world wants words. And while religion has no shortage of them science is incapable of taking a leap of faith.



I hope that made a good point, because when I heard it, it sort of made perfect sense to me.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!