Question about high altitude pictures

My dear flatties,

I've recently become a believer. Not too long ago, the subject sparked my interest and I became very curious, asking myself what could be leading people to think that the earth is flat. I was astonished by the information I found. The more I researched, the more "real" it all seemed to me. I've completely lost my interest for conventional astronomy nowadays and I feel deeply cheated and brain washed. It's highly improbable that I'll ever get the chance to, but one of my dreams now is to visit the north and south poles.

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium. So here is my question, how are high altitude pictures taken? Balloons?

Also, how come certain dishes are directional? As far as I understand it, with a flat earth, radio waves can travel very, very far, but how come some dishes are directed towards the sky? I wonder if we have some kind of radio emitter floating up there.

Thanks for your time!

-Ben

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Ben, you are providing your own proofs in the questions you ask, that FET is BS.

Keep asking. The more questions you ask the more you prove FET is fantasy.

Here's a question; Why is there no accurate usable FE map?

Nikolai tesla once proposed bouncing electrical waves off of the firmament, or the enclosure some believe in, which is supposedly dome shaped in nature. Modern history states that he planned to bounce them off the moon, but we know better than that right? If in fact those who lie about satellites know about this firmament, it is entirely possible that they would know how to do the same, and therefore reflect normal radio transmissions via this dome to a "satellite" dish. To those who just read this and scoffed, Bbaretto is correct, the melting point of Titanium is 3034 degrees Fahrenheit and this "thermosphere" can reach 3632 degrees fahrenheit or higher! Either satellites are not real, or the thermosphere is not, pick one. Maybe both?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

2k C? Can your provide a link?

In the real universe the ISS  temps range from around -157 c on the shaded sit to121c in direct sunlight.

Nikolai tesla once proposed bouncing electrical waves off of the firmament, or the enclosure some believe in, which is supposedly dome shaped in nature. Modern history states that he planned to bounce them off the moon, but we know better than that right? If in fact those who lie about satellites know about this firmament, it is entirely possible that they would know how to do the same, and therefore reflect normal radio transmissions via this dome to a "satellite" dish. To those who just read this and scoffed, Bbaretto is correct, the melting point of Titanium is 3034 degrees Fahrenheit and this "thermosphere" can reach 3632 degrees fahrenheit or higher! Either satellites are not real, or the thermosphere is not, pick one. Maybe both?

Thank you, that is a very sound explanation, especially being based on Tesla.

For a moment I thought "maybe I should have gone to 'round earth society' to find information on flat earth" lol

-Ben

However, the question still remains: would it be sustainable to have some sort of balloon in the upper atmosphere just for imaging purposes, or do we simply have stealth military air planes still doing recon?

From wikipedia:

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. A normal thermometer might be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

You do know that convection is not the only means of heat transfer, right? 

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

Which is why I quoted the Wikipedia article.

But to put it in terms more easily understood:

The sparks that fly off a sparkler are between 1000 and 1600 degrees Celcius. But if they hit your hand you don't feel a thing. That's because they might have a high temperature but because of their low mass they don't have much thermal energy. So each impact cannot transfer much energy to the skin, which means you don't get burned.

So while the molecules of the Thermosphere are indeed hot, there are too few of them to actually transfer that heat onto a passing rocket or satellite.

If thermometers show low temperatures in this "thermosphere", then how would one know it is hot?

Hmm I see, thanks for the explanation. So then, satellites are indeed feasible? If so, following the idea that the earth is flat and that there is a dome, what maintains them up there? I'm not sure whether I should pursue the idea that gravity is real, or that the FE is moving at 9.8 m/s

Guys, my goal is to explain the world we live in, but from a FE perspective.

If thermometers show low temperatures in this "thermosphere", then how would one know it is hot?

Wow, I hadn't thought of that. True, how could one measure the temperature at that altitude if a thermometer isn't reliable

My dear flatties,

I've recently become a believer. Not too long ago, the subject sparked my interest and I became very curious, asking myself what could be leading people to think that the earth is flat. I was astonished by the information I found. The more I researched, the more "real" it all seemed to me. I've completely lost my interest for conventional astronomy nowadays and I feel deeply cheated and brain washed. It's highly improbable that I'll ever get the chance to, but one of my dreams now is to visit the north and south poles.

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium. So here is my question, how are high altitude pictures taken? Balloons?

Also, how come certain dishes are directional? As far as I understand it, with a flat earth, radio waves can travel very, very far, but how come some dishes are directed towards the sky? I wonder if we have some kind of radio emitter floating up there.

Thanks for your time!

-Ben

Let's put the thermosphere stuff to bed for a start:

Would someone please explain to me how we learned 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.

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.


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

Then you "wonder if we have some kind of radio emitter floating up there." Certainly, the satellites in geostationary orbit.

If you look where these satellite TV dishes are pointing (from the surface of the Globe!) of it turns out that they all aim at the location of the appropriate satellite over the equator.

Then "how are high altitude pictures taken? Balloons?"
You don't get balloons high enough to take photos of hurricanes like this (hurricanes are huge!):

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 02:17:41 PM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

You do know that convection is not the only means of heat transfer, right?

There are three ways, right?
Conduction, convection, and radiation

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/transfer.html

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 02:17:41 PM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

You do know that convection is not the only means of heat transfer, right?

You do know that conduction also requires the presence of fluid material, so the absence of significant matter precludes conduction and convection.

The temperature of the "gases" in the thermosphere has little influence on radiation, the heat sources for that are the sun and the earth, but "outer space" is at an extremely low temperature.

The equilibrium temperature for a satellite is, guess what? Around 15 C! Yes, it's in about the same thermal environment as earth - big deal.
From: What's the typical temperature of a satellite orbiting the Earth?

Any more wise-cracks?

You know, I'm getting a little wary of all these ppl playing against the idea of a flat earth, on a flat earth forum. What's your motivation to make an account, read and answer to threads? I mean, I was expecting more like-minded people here, looking for explanations and trying to connect the dots, on a flat world. I've actually observed more people playing against than in favor of FE.

Now I understand why there is a closed "believers" section. I wish I had access to it.

I mean, say I believe the earth is round, and I'm with 99% of the population. Why would I waste my time to register on a forum called "flat earth society" to try to convince a minority that they are wrong? It sounds very, very fishy to me. Nonetheless, I do recognize it is important to see both sides.

You know, I'm getting a little wary of all these ppl playing against the idea of a flat earth, on a flat earth forum. What's your motivation to make an account, read and answer to threads? I mean, I was expecting more like-minded people here, looking for explanations and trying to connect the dots, on a flat world. I've actually observed more people playing against than in favor of FE.

Now I understand why there is a closed "believers" section. I wish I had access to it.

I mean, say I believe the earth is round, and I'm with 99% of the population. Why would I waste my time to register on a forum called "flat earth society" to try to convince a minority that they are wrong? It sounds very, very fishy to me. Nonetheless, I do recognize it is important to see both sides.

I am here because I do not want uncommitted people looking at the site thinking that the material posted here is really valid evidence of a flat earth.

Of course there are some who seem able to believe the flimsiest evidence as proving that the earth is flat.

Almost all the claimed "evidence for the flat earth" is really just a failure to understand aspects of the Globe, as is this thread.   

Its seems to be always a case of "I don't understand the Globe, and that proves that the earth is flat", well it doesn't.

In fact very few seem able to explain the numerous anomalies found in the "Flat Earth Theory".

Quote from: Mainframes on September 01, 2016, 02:17:41 PM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 07:35:25 AM

Quote from: bbarreto on September 01, 2016, 07:31:22 AM

I don't think satellites are real, because they are mainly in the thermosphere, which is hot enough to melt titanium.

Proof?

Thought so.

I can't prove or disprove it I say it's hot enough to melt titanium because this is what conventional science teaches, so to me it's a conflicting idea, to think that satellites are at an altitude where temperatures reach 2000 Celsius

Temperatures may reach 2000 C but the heat capacity of the air is so ludicrously low that it wouldn't actually heat any solid object any appreciable amount.

You do know that convection is not the only means of heat transfer, right?

The heat capacity of air not heating other objects would actually be a conduction issue not convection......

And just to cover the third option radiative heating would not be appreciably higher than on the ground.

If thermometers show low temperatures in this "thermosphere", then how would one know it is hot?

Hold on a second: how do YOU know it's hot?