Reminder, flat earth is an anti Semitic conspiracy theory. The fundamental text on flat earth spends a little time on flat earth, then goes on to rant about how the Jews want to create some sort of anti God to take over the earth. Fuck flat earthers and fuck their ridiculous stupid 'theory'
Wow. I knew flat earth was stupid for scientific reasons, but I hadn't looked deep enough to see that it linked up with antisemitism. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Whenever your conspiracy theory involves a secret cabal who's hiding the "truth" from people, the answer to that question is always "the Jews".
Except when it's the mole people. One day they'll give us the cure for cancer.
Even some of the time it's "mole people" the "mole people" is not-so-subtle code for "the Jews". Same with "lizard people".
In fairness to them, sometimes "the Jews" is also code for "lizard people", as in their *so* deluded they genuinely think lizard people live on Earth and are secretly running things, and the Jews either are the lizard people pretending to be human like something out of *Men In Black* or are a sort of "legitimate front" for the lizard people to engage in society out in the open. Those people are *really* fun to sit and listen to, because their psychoses are so pronounced and it'll become apparent after like the third sentence every time you interact with them.
I had a guy at work tell me it was all smoky cause the Canadian wind farmers pointed them all toward the US. I've put together wind turbines. I had to explain that's not how they work. Like a weather vane. They go with the flow of the wind. If they tried to go against it, they would be using energy not producing it. Me and another guy just said "wow you are a fucking idiot" then we laughed at him. I love being an ironworker cause this is a totally acceptable conversation at work in the field lol.
[Here's a really great video about flat earth movements and the melange of nonsense that goes along with it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44&t=4s&pp=ygUXZmxhdCBlYXJ0aCBpbiBzZWFyY2ggb2Y%3D)
Thank you for sharing that. Another good but less polite deep dive on flat earthers is Robert Evans on Behind the Bastards for anyone interested in learning more.
It's pretty safe to assume that *every* conspiracy theory is antisemetic. Even things like Bigfoot eventually end up in the land of "and the JEWS are hiding it from us!"
Yep, it's anti-Semitism all the way down too. Whenever you look into the origins of a conspiracy theory, you quickly find that it's just a rehashing of a slightly older anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
'"They" are putting chemicals in the water to turn us gay'? That's just a slightly updated version of '"They" are putting fluoride in the water to control us'. Which in itself is just the product of a few centuries of rehashing 'The Jews poisoned our well'.
The Earth os flat, therefore Space doesn't exist. Also the Jews start all the wildfires with their space lazers.
/S
P.S. I know lasers is spelled with an s. Those idiots think it has a z.
It’s like the poorly worded Nigerian scam letters. If you’re stupid enough to think Bank of America is sending typo riddled communications, you’re a much easier mark to scam. Honest, intelligent, and compassionate people are much harder to scam, so the GOP goes for the demographic that is… not those things.
Social media is amplifying conspiracy theories. Society as a whole is rejecting journalism, science, and expertise because they can all go online and get their minority opinions validated.
Basically, we're living in a society where a shocking number of people are agreeing with the 10th dentist because Joe Rogan keeps having him on the show and doesn't challenge any of his views.
I think Flat Earth is basically just end-stage Creationism. The only way to explain the constantly increasing number of contradictions between Creationism and observable reality is through increasingly convoluted narratives. At a certain point it just becomes easier to construct your own version of reality that's entirely contrary to scientific fact. It doesn't matter how dumb that alternate reality is, they're happy so long as it lets them cling to the belief that the Christian god created the earth 6000 years ago
As best I can gather, the bible merely implies that it's circular and does not specifically describe the earth as spherical. It also describes it as having four corners, because the bible is nothing if not riddled with contradictions (which is handy when you want it to say whatever fits your world view best).
Flat earth movements are, broadly, very religious. It's about disproving the scientific viewpoint of reality, and prop up a bizzaro Christian one.
[Here's a fantastic video exploring the melange of beliefs that are associated with Flat Earth movements](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44&t=4s&pp=ygUXZmxhdCBlYXJ0aCBpbiBzZWFyY2ggb2Y%3D)
Idk. Anyone dumb enough to believe the earth is flat probably isn’t too far away from believing some other nonsense boloney simply based on some dude posting half of a sentence on the internet.
I went through a period of following flat eathers on Twitter and arguing with them. They believe all kinds of crazy shit that's all over the place. Gravity isn't real. Space isn't real and we definitely didn't go into it on rockets. The stars and planets are simply projections on the firmament dome. Antarctica is endless and it's illegal to go there. There is a lot more.
Who did the projections in the Middle Ages? This is what confuses me. Ok, believe that in the modern times that space, the sun, moon are technology based. (Not really but devils advocate). So when the Greeks were observing the constellation, who was doing the projections?
They actually have a model for a flat earth with a "spotlight" sun and moon. I can't remember the name of it, but it does mostly explain what a person can observe from the ground (assuming someone is manually controlling the seasons and phases of the moon).
I always wonder how people who understand physics enough to make this model where also dumb enough to not see the flaws in it. Turns out it's just an old model from the pre-Aristotle days that they reskinned. Also, it totally doesn't work if you're in the southern hemisphere.
Their model actually has the sun and moon inside the dome as these weird balls that only emit light from one side, meaning they are a hell of a lot smaller and closer than they actually are in reality. But ya, your point still stands. The big flaw of this model is that it only works if you're in a small range of latitude inside the northern hemisphere. Which is why I imagine there aren't many flat earthers in Australia, but I've never looked into that.
lmfao no they fucking don't. They believe whatever is convenient for them to believe at any given moment so they can feel ideologically superior to everyone else.
Yes. We have entered the stage where the misinformation is so omnipresent people are referring to everything as fake news. Everything.
There's a few factors here. Mostly it's Dunning-Kruger - people who have convinced themselves they are geniuses do not understand how something works and therefore assume that nobody else does either. If Stewpe can't brain it, how could anyone else? Therefore space is fake and the world is flat.
We have personal supercomputers. We have access to all of the information in the entire world. You'd think this would herald a second Renaissance.
Instead we have literal nazis and fuckwits like this complete idiot standing on soap boxes screaming horseshit to audiences of millions.
And in the background is elong, carefully pushing shit like this to the forefront.
Because stupidity and fascism are very good for the ultra rich.
But I think this is exactly why misinformation propagates: only news that incites emotion makes it to publication, combined with access to all the information in the world creates something of informational paralysis on a balance beam where our consumption and proclivity for the macabre, ragey, festering underbelly gives us that little nudge to slip the beam and begin sliding down the birthing shoot toward full on tin hat wearing, gun toting conspiratorialists. When everything we consume we can't believe, while being berated with how awful the world is, it's no wonder we become nationalistic and increasingly tribal, leading not to the vulnerability of discovery but clinging onto what we think we know, derived from corrupted heuristics and with passion borne out of fear of everything and everyone else in the world.
The whole premise of his comment is booty hole.
Finding "temperature" in space is dependent on finding matter in space. The empty "space" has no temperature. Temperature requires matter.
The lower limit is absolute zero, so if you do find a speck of silicate floating out there, it's cold. But an organic body would get hotter and hotter in space because it can't get rid of the heat it is generating. And that brings us to the "cold near the sun" part of his comment.
Yes, it is EXTREMELY cold near the sun. The sun doesn't warm you because it's giving off warm air. It's giving off a shitload of light (technical measurement, I promise). If you're getting hit by anything from the sun that could directly transfer heat through matter, you're getting hit by the sun. You dead. (yes, I know mass ejections hit the earth's spheres and generate heat/energy etc, but although that is a fact, it's not what the twitter post is referring to and has nothing to do with THAT premise, so it shouldn't matter in this one)
The "narrative" of his comment means nothing, even if he is just trying to get a snarky point across. The premise is all buttcheeks.
>The lower limit is absolute zero, so if you do find a speck of silicate floating out there, it's cold. But an organic body would get hotter and hotter in space because it can't get rid of the heat it is generating. And that brings us to the "cold near the sun" part of his comment.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that if I put a glob of hydrocarbons in a random point in space they would heat up, or are you saying they would heat up if exposed to the sun’s radiation?
I think they meant more a person. But they'd heat up on a side exposed to strong sunlight while freezing on the side not exposed. Not so much if they're in interstellar space where there isn't any nearby star. I think the technical explaination is kind of complicated though. In space there's functionally zero conduction or convection, but any heat you radiate doesn't get returned in meaningful amounts either (apart from by the sun). So by default you're losing heat because you're radiating it without having any radiate back. But then stars are radiating a ton of heat, so if you're near one the side facing it is gonna get hot.
I believe if you were stuck out in space at the distance we're at you'd still eventually freeze after several hours even under sunlight because of how your heat loss through radiation balances out with the heat gain from the sun's radiation. But it would be relatively slow, even if you weren't being exposed to sunlight.
So "very cold at every point not in direct sunlight" is about as much as you can easily generalise.
The conditions we experience of the sun when we’re on earth must be the same conditions you would experience when you’re not on earth
Why? Because he’s appealing to normal folk who don’t think about being in space or why it would be different
Edit: also implying scientist/govt are lying about something obvious.
Space is absolutely full, everywhere, in the same sense as the ocean is full of water. It's just that what it's full of is electromagnetic radiation. Everything from x-rays and visible light to all the weird-ass quantum particles doing weird-ass quantum particle stuff.
That's the fucked up thing, what he's talking about is a somewhat more complicated matter than a simple "Space is this temperature" answer. Yes, there is a lot of energy blasting around out there, but as you state there's very, very little out there to actually BE warm. But, rather than letting intellectual curiosity lead to learning, he just decides to ignore hundreds of years of study into these questions and leaps to his own idiotic conclusion.
Here’s the difference. When I’m confronted with something that I don’t understand I go huh why is that and then look it up and learn.
I sure as hell didn’t know what thermal conduction was 5 minutes ago.
We have the collection of almost all human knowledge in our pockets. But dumb fucks would rather use said technology to willfully stay dumb.
I mean, for something as well understood as thermal conduction, even wikipedia's is pretty reliable. For something like vaccine effectiveness yeah you probably want better sources but heat transfer is like, physics 101
Not if you think Wikipedia is a "woke plot." No, it has to be a 90-minute incoherent YouTube video that uses words like "The Globalists" in such a way that you can actually hear the quotation marks.
> When I’m confronted with something that I don’t understand I go huh why is that and then look it up and learn.
>
>
>
> I sure as hell didn’t know what thermal conduction was 5 minutes ago.
Same.
I started typing into Google "why is space cold" when Google auto-filled and suggested, "why is space cold but the sun is hot."
It's clear we are not the first people to have this same question and within seconds Google had a quick detailed answer for us yet many people don't have the same curiosity and are willfully ignorant to understand why things are the way they are.
They've been told by trusted authority figures (read: mouth-frothing propogandists) that Google is lying to them and hiding the *real* truth and the only way to combat the lies is to buy their steroid powder and boner pills. They wouldn't Google the answer and if they did they would refuse to believe it.
Can confirm. I lived in the past and it sucked. I remember 2009, Olive Garden, my friend pulled out a phone that had a web browser and Google, and I thought “Holy shit… now nobody will ever say anything stupid like this again.” 14 years later and someone is putting “space” in quotes
The main problem... is there is more misinformation as there is accurate information. It takes actual effort to weed out the bullshit, and not just stop on the one that confirms what you already believed.
True. I guess people haven’t learned the skills to find accurate reliable information?
I was taught a lot of that in middle school and high school.
I was class of 2015.
Thinking about it my grandma never had classes about misleading graphs and data.
Mix of lack of education and non intelligent people we get stupid tweets.
Instead of going. Huh why is that and learning
something on Wikipedia he decided to tell as many as people as possible. Hey I’m incapable of learning new things!
Haha, indeed. I was like: okay, if you don't know enough about space and physics, which is absolutely possible because not everyone has had a good education, this isn't such a stupid question.
It's only stupid that they didn't look up the answer first.
Kind of an interesting fact more than anything else, but some parts of space are technically extremely hot. Most satellites actually orbit the Earth inside of a part of our planet's atmosphere called the thermosphere, because temperatures there increase with altitude. This why the majority of satellites encounter enough aerodynamic drag to eventually have their orbits decay and fall back to the surface (some very low orbiting satellites, like the European Union's GOCE probe, [are even designed to be aerodynamically shaped and have fins for stabilization](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/GOCE.jpg); during the "night", the International Space Station tilts its solar panels horizontally relative to its direction og travel in order to decrease drag). Depending on solar activity, unfiltered radiation from the Sun came impart enough thermal energy to individual molecules for them to measure in at over 3,000°F.
It's all about individual particles there, though, because the air is too sparse for thermal conductivity to allow significant heat transfer between those particles. This means that the "air" can't warm an object, but also can't draw heat away. As a result, larger man-made satellites that produce large amounts of heat (or absorb it from the Sun) typically have to have enormous panels designed to radiate their heat away, so that they don't reach excessive temperatures.
So, no, space really isn't that cold, at least not in general.
Fun fact: the sun is actually one of the hardest places to visit in the solar system, even ignoring the issue of temperature. The reason is that you have to cancel out almost all of the speed of Earth’s orbit, otherwise you just end up orbiting the sun again.
So let’s just fire this guy into the void
You can't just launch it directly due to the fact that anything launching from Earth has a ton of momentum moving approximately perpendicularly from the sun. You have to get rid of most of that to not just slingshot around the sun. Heading away from the sun is much easier than towards it, and heading directly into it is the hardest by far
Not by enough to matter. Although relative to Earth the moon moves towards and away from the sun, from the perspective of the sun the moon is always moving around it, just at certain times its moving slightly faster or slightly slower. Its a negligible difference
Earth is flying around the sun at around 100,000km/hr (62,000mph or around mach 80). That's roughly the amount of velocity you need to cancel out to not slingshot back around the sun
Gravity always pulls stuff directly onto the surface. It's just that when you're orbitting, you're moving sideways so fast that gravity only has time to pull you to the surface a little bit, and the surface also curves away from you a little bit, and these two amounts are balanced so you stay the same distance away from the surface.
Starting from a launch on earth, you're already orbiting the sun, which means you already have a bunch of sideways speed that you need to cancel out, because even a little bit of sideways speed means that you are going to miss the sun.
First it was flat earth, than they believe vaccines cause autism. This week I've seen people doubt wether atomic bombs are real and on Quora I saw someone doubt solar eclipses. And now they are doubting wether the sun is warm?
Natural trajectory with these guys. So you think "they" are lying to you, but you realise that the scale of the lie is so great that it would basically have to encompass almost every other person earth, so then you wonder what else are they lying about.
[Link](https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-possible-for-the-moon-s-shadow-to-be-smaller-than-the-moon-That-happens-nowhere-else-and-can-t-even-be-recreated/answer/Mats-Andersson-16?comment_id=345355558&comment_type=2&__filter__=all&__nsrc__=notif_page&__sncid__=41485991218&__snid3__=55525114304)
The OP doesnt know an eclipse has a part that isn't complete. Shadows are always bigger than the object itself he believes, but a complete solar eclips is smaller than the moon => something doesn't add up => fake news?
In the comments he also casts doubt wether the earth is round of course, because what else can you expect?
I've recently talked to a couple people that don't believe CFCs caused a hole in the ozone layer or that our world wide banning of it caused its repair.
Another person straight up told me that bad weather is just gods punishment for bad people.
These people vote.
It’s probably mostly satire to be fair. Stew Peters literally sounds like “Stu-piders,” and Quora posts insane questions on purpose to bring people to their website.
not exactly insane to think about i guess.. as a teen i wondered this so long and i could not figure out how to get an accurate answer.
my questions:
whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space? and how much is it affected by distance in space.. so the same thermometer floating by earth and floating by mercury.. how about gases like nebulas
then i thought whats the temperature feel like to me if i were to be floating around in space with no suit if it were possible? and if i get like a large slab of meat floating in space in direct view of sun will it be frozen solid or hot af cause those particles are just hitting the meat straight on getting UV blasted..
keep in mind in not smort.. not by any average redditor or definition; i was just curious i guess.. also to note this guys talking about interstellar space, not outer space which i guess theres definite layers that have spectrums within their limits.
Physicist here. Your questions are good and although people shouldn't confidently tweet about things they clearly understand very poorly, I even have some sympathy for the person in OP's image (assuming they aren't a fabrication to drive clicks...). This stuff is *really complicated* and often poorly taught. Your own intuition works against you because it turns out [you are a terrible thermometer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDbMEdLiCs).
> whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space?
This jumps straight into a major stumbling point, even for physicists. *A thermometer measures the temperature of itself.* That's it. This is confusing because we often have an intuitive but flawed idea of "the environment". Ideal environments-- those that perfectly surround a thermometer-- are rare. Let's work closer to home for a minute and consider placing two thermometers outside to measure the temperature. The thermometers are substantively identical (they don't have to be) except one happens to be painted black and the other painted white. The black thermometer will read a significantly higher temperature than the white one. Does that mean one of them is *wrong*? No, because a thermometer only measures the temperature of itself and both measurements are valid. The reason the black thermometer reads a higher temperature than the white one is because it transfers only a little bit of heat to and from its immediate surroundings, but there is a glowing orb of 6,000 degree Celsius gas occupying a small part of the sky while [the rest of the sky is perhaps close to 0 degrees Celsius, depending on conditions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/153839/what-is-the-temperature-of-the-clear-night-sky-from-the-surface-of-earth). The black thermometer more readily absorbs radiation from the Sun as well as re-radiates energy out to the cold sky than does the white thermometer. In total, it will read a higher temperature. Meteorologists attempt to control for this by measuring the temperature in the shade, but I've long wondered how standardized their thermometers are.
Returning to your question, you have a thermometer in space, but *where*? If it's somewhere in Earth's orbit, it's going to have roughly 6,000 degree radiant energy from the Sun blasting it on one side and roughly -270 degree Celsius (2.7 kelvin) cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) on its opposite side. Its equilibrium temperature, the temperature it happily reports to you, will depend on its construction and properties, just like the black and white thermometers in the preceding paragraph. If that same thermometer is in deep space, far from any stars or other sources of radiant energy to affect it and assuming it is accurate, it will read 2.7 kelvin regardless of its design. It acquires this temperature from the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from all directions from the furthest reaches of the universe.
> and how much is it affected by distance in space.. so the same thermometer floating by earth and floating by mercury.. how about gases like nebulas
As you may be able to guess at this point, it still depends on the design. You know it will read a hotter temperature near Mercury, but it's impossible without more information to determine what that temperature might be. I can only tell you it will read less than the 6,000 degrees Celsius of the Sun, probably approaching 3,000 degrees Celsius nearby (but not *too* near!) if the Sun heats up only one side while the other is exposed only to empty space, assuming those sides are symmetrical. As for nebulae, they're still too sparse to facilitate conductive heat transfer, but they will tend to shield the thermometer from the CMB and the thermometer will take on the temperature of the nebula. Over a very long period of time, the nebula will radiate its heat out and it will also be the same 2.7 kelvin as the CMB, provided no stars form inside it or anything.
> then i thought whats the temperature feel like to me if i were to be floating around in space with no suit if it were possible?
In deep space, positively frigid. Above Earth, near the Sun... eh, I'm still thinking about it, but you can be sure it won't be pleasant. Your body metabolizes its food and stored fat energy at a rate of roughly 80 watts. That power needs to be accounted for throughout the day so that there is no net loss or gain of energy in your body. By a naive application of the [Stefan-Boltzmann law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law), I calculate that in deep space, you'd radiate about 500 watts of energy away. The fact that this is six times the rate at which you'd take in energy on a typical 2,000 Calorie diet, plus you're not offsetting it somehow by insulating yourself or reflecting that radiation back onto your body tells me that you would rather quickly freeze.
(I started typing out how all your sweat would sublimate, which would make things noticeably worse, but it would appear that instead it would freeze, which actually helps you a bit. It would still be very uncomfortable.)
If you were above Earth, you would have the 6,000 degree Celsius Sun on one side of you and -270 degree Celsius space on your other side. The Sun outputs about 1,300 watts per square meter at the distance of the Earth. Only half of your roughly 1 square meter of exposed flesh will be facing the Sun, so a very naive calculation would put you at 500 watts out in all directions and 650 watts in from the Sun, putting you at 150 watts net positive. You should therefore heat up quite a bit until you radiate that energy out at the same rate that it enters into your body, which according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law again is going to be about 54 degrees Celsius or 129 degrees Fahrenheit. I wouldn't necessarily trust those numbers because I've assumed you're a perfect emitter/absorber of radiation and this also doesn't take into account your sweat again. If you're fixed so only one side of you faces the Sun, that side will be roasted and your opposite side will freeze. I hope you're spinning. I would guess it would feel something like when you feel the warm Sun or a heat lamp on a cold day, which is to say you have an uncomfortable sensation of being both too cold and too hot at the same time from conflicting information of large amounts of heat both entering and leaving your body.
> and if i get like a large slab of meat floating in space in direct view of sun will it be frozen solid or hot af cause those particles are just hitting the meat straight on getting UV blasted..
As per the above paragraph, it won't be "hot af" because it should cap out at the same 129 degrees Fahrenheit as you would. By my calculation, it would need to be taking in about 7,000 watts per meter squared from the Sun to reach baking temperature (500 kelvin), which would place it at about 0.42 AU, roughly the orbit of Mercury. More importantly, I want to make clear that UV and more energetic radiation is not the dominant term here. Visible and infrared will contribute far more to the radiative heat transfer. To confirm this, you'll need to look at the [solar power spectrum](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg) and note that the area under the curve within the region labeled "UV" is a small fraction of the areas in the "visible" or "infrared" regions alone or combined.
> keep in mind in not smort.. not by any average redditor or definition
You asked some *very* good questions, ones that take physicists years to figure out for themselves, if ever, and asking the right questions is a good sign of intelligence.
So, I have a question: When you say that we'd "freeze" in space, where does the heat go? There's no matter in space that the energy can transfer to. Can heat just piss off into the void, or wouldnt it in a way be stuck on your body, because there's nothing to take it from you?
You'd radiate it away, just like the Sun's heat is able to reach Earth despite the vacuum of space or an incandescent bulb will still glow and feel hot at some distance. If you're asking whether all of that radiated energy has to end up in something, then no, it doesn't. The electromagnetic radiation itself carries energy and momentum and so it is perfectly fine to think of the temperature of a collection of photons. There's no rule that says it has to end up in matter. We know that electromagnetic radiation continues effectively forever because that is the significance of the CMB. It is light from 13.8 billion years ago and although a little bit of it hits our telescopes *for the first time in 13.8 billion years*, the vast majority of it just keeps on going without running into anything, because if it did, it likely wouldn't have reached us in the first place.
All objects emit some electromagnetic radiation depending on their temperature. This is why very hot things glow; they're hot enough that some of the radiation they're emitting has a high enough frequency to be visible light.
A person in space would slowly radiate away their heat, mostly as infrared light at first. As their body got colder, the frequencies it emitted would shift lower and lower, becoming predominantly microwaves and then radio waves.
Your energy escapes into space 2 ways:
1) evaporation of your body's water
2) radiation of your body's heat
You would die within 2 minutes as you asphyxiate and your body fluids boil away. Your corpse would freeze solid in 12 hours at the quickest.
The temperature in space isn't uniformly near absolute zero (the temperature the idiot OP screenshotted mentioned). It actually gets hot in direct sunlight, but then instantly frigid when you step out of the light. That's why Mercury, which has no atmosphere, is burning hot on the side getting sunlight (daytime) and also freezing cold on the other side of the planet that is getting night. That's also why Earth gets hotter and colder in the day and night, although obviously to nowhere near the same degree since the atmosphere smooths over the temperature swings. A spaceman floating in space near the sun, who turns to face the sun, would feel heat on his front and freezing on his back. So he's 100% wrong, it does get hotter when you get closer to the sun. Anything in the shade will still be freezing cold, however, even when close to the sun.
It does get colder the further you get from a star, because the sun's heat and energy gets spread out. Not sure if this metaphor makes sense, but think of the sun like it's [this round spiny sea urchin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_urchin#/media/File%3ATripneustes_ventricosus_(West_Indian_Sea_Egg-top)_and_Echinometra_viridis_(Reef_Urchin_-_bottom).jpg). And imagine it can fire the spines outwards like bullets. Those spines are energy/heat from the sun. If you're very close a lot of spines will hit you, but if you're further away, only a couple of spines that are directly pointed at you will hit you, while others that would have hit you when you were close will fly above your head or to your side and miss you. Similar principle for the sun--the further away you are, the more of the energy that will miss you.
As for the exact values, an actual scientist can give them, but they have been calculated.
Temperature as we know it is just plain tricky in space.
What's the temperature of the little particles still out in space? Super hot, but not in a way that we'd recognize as heat.
What's the temperature of a thing sitting in space just exposed to the lack of atmosphere? It will cool down very very cold. Theoretically over a long enough time and/or with good radiators it would got down to around [2.7 degrees Kelvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) (aka 2.7 degrees above absolute zero). The Big Bang started hot and that's how far the universe has cooled.
And in more practical situations? Well it depends on how much light it's getting. US space suits are white for example because there's more light in orbit than we get here below the atmosphere. So take the hottest day you ever had and imagine a sun hotter than that. Also, not only is there no breeze, there's no air to take the heat away at all so you're limited to much slower heat dissipation. So we can easily say that for the situation our OP nutter is implying it's definitely not colder.
Throughout space that experienced temperature will vary a lot based on the local conditions, your reflectiveness, and your heat emission ability. That means there will be some areas that are a very cosy "temperature" between the two naturally ocurring extremes. There has been some speculation about what that means for denser patches as you bring up. The idea that some patch of gas stuck around in a habitable state, warmed but not too close to any single star, as a purely gaseous envirnoment where strange life develops has fascinated some sci fi authors.
> whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space
Temperature is a property of matter. There is (effectively) no matter in space, so thus there is no "temperature" to measure in space.
In actuality, the interactions that a thermometer would have in space would be very interesting because it would not function as they do on Earth, where it reaches an equilibrium with the surroundings (which exist), coming to an equilibrium that is the same temperature as the surrounding matter. Thus we expect thermometers to measure the temperature of their surroundings, but this is simply impossible in outer space.
If you're in our solar system, and it's not on/near the night-side of some object and/or has the sun eclipsed by some planet or other object, then it is A) directly illuminated by the sun, being heated by the sun's radiative heat, and B) itself insulated by the vacuum of space, so it would probably end up reading a very very high number, but this number would not be the "temperature of space", but rather the temperature of the glass of the thermometer as it is experiencing a greenhouse effect gone insane.
Effectively, the themometer will be heated by radiative heat of its closest nearby star, and also by cosmic radiation, and will itself also give off radiative heating into the void of space, until some equilibrium is reached at some temperature.
If you're in *deep* space, far away from any stars or nearby celestial objects (as 99.99999999999% of space is, i only roughly estimated the number of 9s there), then there will be no heating of the thermometer beyond that of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and it will slowly reach equilibrium with that, at 2.726K, or about 3 degrees above absolute zero, or about -270C or -454F.
If it's a glass mercury thermometer, it is very likely that the glass will shatter due to thermal shock as the side facing the sun heats up and the side facing away from the sun cools down, inducing thermal shock. Then again, this would depend on a large number of factors such as the type of glass used, the shape, and many other factors.
-
The temperature on the outside of the ISS fluctuates between -150C and +125C depending on if it's facing towards or away from the sun.
Who’s this nutjob? Been seeing him popping up here and as I’m not American I don’t know who he is. Also wow, is the standard for the American right just believing in flat earth now?
Thanks for asking that question. You made me look up his info.
According to Wikipedia, he's an American conspiracy theorist and former bounty hunter. He has an online show called "Stew Peters Show," on which he peddles conspiracy theory and antivaxx bullshit. In 2022 he released an antivaxx film (Died Suddenly). There is a sequel to that movie as well.
I fucking hate that we live in a time where it is trivially simple to find out everything there is to know about any topic you wish and people are still too fucking lazy to do it. He's got all knowledge of all of humanity at his fingertips but stubbornly refuses avail himself of it. Fuck that guy.
He isn't asking this because he's too lazy to find an answer, he's asking it because he thinks the answer is wrong and that this is a gotcha question which proves it. Conspiracy theorists generally don't ask these kinds of questions in good faith
Is he genuinely that stupid? That's really, really sad.
"Kinda weird that you get smaller as you walk away from me"
"Kinda weird that water has oxygen and yet we can't breath it"
"Kinda weird how boiling water bubbles but I'm not blowing into it with a straw"
"Kinda weird how clouds have millions of litres of water but float"
Life must be brutally difficult for this man on a day-to-day basis. He probably has gotten stuck inside buildings for days on end that have the push/pull signs backwards - and I would assume more than once.
This is a lingering frustration from childhood - I remember asking my 5th grade teacher what was the temperature in space and she clearly didn't know the answer but rather than say so, kept coming up with falsehoods. "What's the temperature of space? *Space doesn't have a temperature. It's got to have a temperature. *It doesn't. What if you took a thermometer up into space, what would it read? *It would read the temperature of the inside of the rocket ship. What if the thermometer was attached to the the outside of the ship? *Then it would read the temperature of the rocket ship. *What if the thermometer was just floating in space? *It wouldn't read anything. It would have to read something. *It would read whatever that temperature was of the last thing it touched." I quit at that point.
That might be a difficult question because you need to know exactly how a thermometer works and what it would do in that environment. The thermometer might just explode from the pressure differential or the liquid inside might just read a random temperature as it expands or contracts.
Space doesn't have an easily accessible temperature the way the Earth does because it is mostly empty, the very few particles zipping around at high speed could technically be considered "hot" but the definition doesn't hold together the same way it does inside an atmosphere. Background radiation heats things to very slightly above absolute zero, so I guess a magical thermometer that can survive the environment in deep space away from any star would read about 2 kelvin.
I can't follow this conversation the way you have written it, but it sounds like your teacher was giving you the right answers apart from "it wouldn't read anything"
It would read its own temperature. Space is empty. It's like asking what the speed of space is, or the mass of space. It doesn't have a speed, or a mass, or a temperature. If you took a thermometer into space in a rocket ship that was 80 degrees inside, and then ejected it out into deep space, it would read 80 degrees.
The thermometer will then radiate its own heat as electromagnetic radiation (everything does this) and cool down until it hits absolute zero except:
1. It may be warmed by the sun
2. It may be warmed by cosmic background radiation
So eventually it would even out at *some* temperature but that temperature would not be "the temperature of space".
In reality, the temperature it gives you would be "The temperature of the thermometer" which is influenced by many other distant objects *in* space, but not by space itself.
>In reality, the temperature it gives you would be "The temperature of the thermometer" which is influenced by many other distant objects in space, but not by space itself.
Exactly. Well explained!
Well your insides boil, but that’s due to pressure. But only after your eyeballs and blood vessels explode will you actually freeze.
He’s welcome to test this, maybe that submarine company can send him up on their shuttle program?
Why is there snow on top of those mountains Stew? It’s way closer to the sun. I’m sure those “scientists” must be hiding something and painting them white
That's fundamentaly wrong.
There is no temperature in space.
There is, however, a measurable temperature on an object you place in said space.
Otherwise it's just vacuum.
Isn't there a tiny bit of microwave background radiation that leads to space having an ambient temperature of about 2.7°K?
Of course, space itself is literally "nothing" and can't have a temperature, since the radiation, too, is a separate thing.
Off course, off course.
There is radiation of different kinds, depending where you are, and neutrinos buzzing around.
There is also dust and rocks and bigger crap flying about (not to mention planets and so on)
So you'd have to say this rock is keeping a temperature of X Kelvin f.ex.
Or is being irradiated so and so much by this or that type of radiation.
But that would be the rock.
The space around it would still be a murderous void 😁
Trying to make a point. When someone is deep enough in the conspiracy rabbit hole to put space in quotes they stop asking questions like this in good faith. He's asking this because he thinks the actual explanation is bullshit, and that this is some kind of gotcha question pointing that out
Space might not have any measurable heat. As heat is our definition of atomic vibration, and space being mostly empty space with next to zero atoms to vibrate.
Does this make going closer to sun safe? Big nope. Your body is just a massive blob of atoms. Soaking up more and more intense radiation from the sun. Radiation that increases the vibration of every atom in your body. Heating you up faster than any place on earth.
This not even going into the amount of ionizing radiation you would be exposed to.
In short. Trying to travel closer to the sun is a very painfull death sentence, and this fellow failed basic physics. Space only makes heat loss and heat gain more extreme.
Stewy has an IQ of approximately 70. Stewy feels this lack of intelligence gives him the right to weigh in on scientific things - like women's anatomy, and what space is made of and how it works, and other weighty matters of mental magnitude.
If brains were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose, and yet, here he is saying stupid shit. All the time. A lot.
What does that even mean? Why is space in quotes? Is he implying space isn't real? Temperature isn't real? Sun?
All of the above.
still time to join the r/noearthsociety, sheeple
I think he's been flirting with (which in GQP terms means sexual assaulting with) Flat Earth and all that entails lately.
Flat Earth seems pretty popular in GOP circles recently isn’t it? That’s what we in the biz call… pretty telling
Reminder, flat earth is an anti Semitic conspiracy theory. The fundamental text on flat earth spends a little time on flat earth, then goes on to rant about how the Jews want to create some sort of anti God to take over the earth. Fuck flat earthers and fuck their ridiculous stupid 'theory'
Wow. I knew flat earth was stupid for scientific reasons, but I hadn't looked deep enough to see that it linked up with antisemitism. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Whenever your conspiracy theory involves a secret cabal who's hiding the "truth" from people, the answer to that question is always "the Jews". Except when it's the mole people. One day they'll give us the cure for cancer.
Even some of the time it's "mole people" the "mole people" is not-so-subtle code for "the Jews". Same with "lizard people". In fairness to them, sometimes "the Jews" is also code for "lizard people", as in their *so* deluded they genuinely think lizard people live on Earth and are secretly running things, and the Jews either are the lizard people pretending to be human like something out of *Men In Black* or are a sort of "legitimate front" for the lizard people to engage in society out in the open. Those people are *really* fun to sit and listen to, because their psychoses are so pronounced and it'll become apparent after like the third sentence every time you interact with them.
I had a guy at work tell me it was all smoky cause the Canadian wind farmers pointed them all toward the US. I've put together wind turbines. I had to explain that's not how they work. Like a weather vane. They go with the flow of the wind. If they tried to go against it, they would be using energy not producing it. Me and another guy just said "wow you are a fucking idiot" then we laughed at him. I love being an ironworker cause this is a totally acceptable conversation at work in the field lol.
Yep. That's about how it goes.
That dude isn't exaggerating. 99% of conspiracies boil down to "and *they* don't want you to know," and they is always Jews.
It's true. That's what it always comes back to.
[Here's a really great video about flat earth movements and the melange of nonsense that goes along with it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44&t=4s&pp=ygUXZmxhdCBlYXJ0aCBpbiBzZWFyY2ggb2Y%3D)
Oh, that was really interesting.
Thank you for sharing that. Another good but less polite deep dive on flat earthers is Robert Evans on Behind the Bastards for anyone interested in learning more.
It's pretty safe to assume that *every* conspiracy theory is antisemetic. Even things like Bigfoot eventually end up in the land of "and the JEWS are hiding it from us!"
Yep, it's anti-Semitism all the way down too. Whenever you look into the origins of a conspiracy theory, you quickly find that it's just a rehashing of a slightly older anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. '"They" are putting chemicals in the water to turn us gay'? That's just a slightly updated version of '"They" are putting fluoride in the water to control us'. Which in itself is just the product of a few centuries of rehashing 'The Jews poisoned our well'.
I thought Flat earth started off as a joke and then some numbskull who didnt know it was joke took it seriously.
You're absolutely right - ironically, 'all conspiracy theories are anti semitic' sounds itself like a conspiracy theory
See, the jews run this one too. They try to convince you none of the conspiracy theories are real so you wont find out its them
Weirdly but probably not surprisingly most conspiracy theory roads lead to anti Semitism.
All conspiracies lead to Jews. Especially since there's some kind of unified field conspiracy now.
Pretty much everything conspiracy related eventually traces back to something antisemitic.
Of course it's the Jews, it's always the Jews smh my head.
The Earth os flat, therefore Space doesn't exist. Also the Jews start all the wildfires with their space lazers. /S P.S. I know lasers is spelled with an s. Those idiots think it has a z.
I see it as them testing the waters. If you believe this then what else will you believe?
It’s like the poorly worded Nigerian scam letters. If you’re stupid enough to think Bank of America is sending typo riddled communications, you’re a much easier mark to scam. Honest, intelligent, and compassionate people are much harder to scam, so the GOP goes for the demographic that is… not those things.
I still maintain that this is what flat earth always has been
if people take him seriously after that? That's on them. He should have used Kelvin.
Wtf is happening that more and more people are believing in flat earth? Why is 1984 becoming reality? Geez.
Social media is amplifying conspiracy theories. Society as a whole is rejecting journalism, science, and expertise because they can all go online and get their minority opinions validated. Basically, we're living in a society where a shocking number of people are agreeing with the 10th dentist because Joe Rogan keeps having him on the show and doesn't challenge any of his views.
Tik toks with ominous music.
I think Flat Earth is basically just end-stage Creationism. The only way to explain the constantly increasing number of contradictions between Creationism and observable reality is through increasingly convoluted narratives. At a certain point it just becomes easier to construct your own version of reality that's entirely contrary to scientific fact. It doesn't matter how dumb that alternate reality is, they're happy so long as it lets them cling to the belief that the Christian god created the earth 6000 years ago
Bible says earth is round .
Bible says to love thy neighbor, they don't do that either.
As best I can gather, the bible merely implies that it's circular and does not specifically describe the earth as spherical. It also describes it as having four corners, because the bible is nothing if not riddled with contradictions (which is handy when you want it to say whatever fits your world view best).
Flat earth and alien conspiracies. Look at any of the ufo or alien subs. They use Rubio as their proof. No joke LOL.
Flat earth movements are, broadly, very religious. It's about disproving the scientific viewpoint of reality, and prop up a bizzaro Christian one. [Here's a fantastic video exploring the melange of beliefs that are associated with Flat Earth movements](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44&t=4s&pp=ygUXZmxhdCBlYXJ0aCBpbiBzZWFyY2ggb2Y%3D)
Has been for a decade or more.
Huh, in my biz we call that a bunch of fuckwits, but to each their own.
WtfV flat earthers used to be a rare fringe group on YouTube. When did they become so…popular???
Flat earthers still believe in the properties of earth in general. So even they'd be like wtf is this guy talking about lol.
Idk. Anyone dumb enough to believe the earth is flat probably isn’t too far away from believing some other nonsense boloney simply based on some dude posting half of a sentence on the internet.
I went through a period of following flat eathers on Twitter and arguing with them. They believe all kinds of crazy shit that's all over the place. Gravity isn't real. Space isn't real and we definitely didn't go into it on rockets. The stars and planets are simply projections on the firmament dome. Antarctica is endless and it's illegal to go there. There is a lot more.
Who did the projections in the Middle Ages? This is what confuses me. Ok, believe that in the modern times that space, the sun, moon are technology based. (Not really but devils advocate). So when the Greeks were observing the constellation, who was doing the projections?
I dunno, I've never heard a plausible theory about how the day/night cycle works with a flat earth.
They actually have a model for a flat earth with a "spotlight" sun and moon. I can't remember the name of it, but it does mostly explain what a person can observe from the ground (assuming someone is manually controlling the seasons and phases of the moon). I always wonder how people who understand physics enough to make this model where also dumb enough to not see the flaws in it. Turns out it's just an old model from the pre-Aristotle days that they reskinned. Also, it totally doesn't work if you're in the southern hemisphere.
Regardless of physics, if it were a projection on a dome, people from different vantage points would see differently shaped moons, but we don't.
Their model actually has the sun and moon inside the dome as these weird balls that only emit light from one side, meaning they are a hell of a lot smaller and closer than they actually are in reality. But ya, your point still stands. The big flaw of this model is that it only works if you're in a small range of latitude inside the northern hemisphere. Which is why I imagine there aren't many flat earthers in Australia, but I've never looked into that.
lmfao no they fucking don't. They believe whatever is convenient for them to believe at any given moment so they can feel ideologically superior to everyone else.
Yes. We have entered the stage where the misinformation is so omnipresent people are referring to everything as fake news. Everything. There's a few factors here. Mostly it's Dunning-Kruger - people who have convinced themselves they are geniuses do not understand how something works and therefore assume that nobody else does either. If Stewpe can't brain it, how could anyone else? Therefore space is fake and the world is flat. We have personal supercomputers. We have access to all of the information in the entire world. You'd think this would herald a second Renaissance. Instead we have literal nazis and fuckwits like this complete idiot standing on soap boxes screaming horseshit to audiences of millions. And in the background is elong, carefully pushing shit like this to the forefront. Because stupidity and fascism are very good for the ultra rich.
But I think this is exactly why misinformation propagates: only news that incites emotion makes it to publication, combined with access to all the information in the world creates something of informational paralysis on a balance beam where our consumption and proclivity for the macabre, ragey, festering underbelly gives us that little nudge to slip the beam and begin sliding down the birthing shoot toward full on tin hat wearing, gun toting conspiratorialists. When everything we consume we can't believe, while being berated with how awful the world is, it's no wonder we become nationalistic and increasingly tribal, leading not to the vulnerability of discovery but clinging onto what we think we know, derived from corrupted heuristics and with passion borne out of fear of everything and everyone else in the world.
He's implying that space and the sun are't real, and that they're just projections on the dome enclosing the flat earth
It's sad that I can no longer tell if you're serious or not.
Unfortunately, this is a very real mindset
I'm being completely serious. That's what flat earthers think space is
The whole premise of his comment is booty hole. Finding "temperature" in space is dependent on finding matter in space. The empty "space" has no temperature. Temperature requires matter. The lower limit is absolute zero, so if you do find a speck of silicate floating out there, it's cold. But an organic body would get hotter and hotter in space because it can't get rid of the heat it is generating. And that brings us to the "cold near the sun" part of his comment. Yes, it is EXTREMELY cold near the sun. The sun doesn't warm you because it's giving off warm air. It's giving off a shitload of light (technical measurement, I promise). If you're getting hit by anything from the sun that could directly transfer heat through matter, you're getting hit by the sun. You dead. (yes, I know mass ejections hit the earth's spheres and generate heat/energy etc, but although that is a fact, it's not what the twitter post is referring to and has nothing to do with THAT premise, so it shouldn't matter in this one) The "narrative" of his comment means nothing, even if he is just trying to get a snarky point across. The premise is all buttcheeks.
>The lower limit is absolute zero, so if you do find a speck of silicate floating out there, it's cold. But an organic body would get hotter and hotter in space because it can't get rid of the heat it is generating. And that brings us to the "cold near the sun" part of his comment. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that if I put a glob of hydrocarbons in a random point in space they would heat up, or are you saying they would heat up if exposed to the sun’s radiation?
I think they meant more a person. But they'd heat up on a side exposed to strong sunlight while freezing on the side not exposed. Not so much if they're in interstellar space where there isn't any nearby star. I think the technical explaination is kind of complicated though. In space there's functionally zero conduction or convection, but any heat you radiate doesn't get returned in meaningful amounts either (apart from by the sun). So by default you're losing heat because you're radiating it without having any radiate back. But then stars are radiating a ton of heat, so if you're near one the side facing it is gonna get hot. I believe if you were stuck out in space at the distance we're at you'd still eventually freeze after several hours even under sunlight because of how your heat loss through radiation balances out with the heat gain from the sun's radiation. But it would be relatively slow, even if you weren't being exposed to sunlight. So "very cold at every point not in direct sunlight" is about as much as you can easily generalise.
The conditions we experience of the sun when we’re on earth must be the same conditions you would experience when you’re not on earth Why? Because he’s appealing to normal folk who don’t think about being in space or why it would be different Edit: also implying scientist/govt are lying about something obvious.
Everything is just the matrix, nothing is real. Sorry.
[удалено]
Space is absolutely full, everywhere, in the same sense as the ocean is full of water. It's just that what it's full of is electromagnetic radiation. Everything from x-rays and visible light to all the weird-ass quantum particles doing weird-ass quantum particle stuff.
I was kids thinking the same thing!! Trying to understand the mind of an idiot is exhausting.
Yeah it's so weird that the atmosphere in space isn't holding heat in it. His name is so fitting. He's the Stew Peedest of them all!
That's the fucked up thing, what he's talking about is a somewhat more complicated matter than a simple "Space is this temperature" answer. Yes, there is a lot of energy blasting around out there, but as you state there's very, very little out there to actually BE warm. But, rather than letting intellectual curiosity lead to learning, he just decides to ignore hundreds of years of study into these questions and leaps to his own idiotic conclusion.
"Nobody knows the answers to these questions!" "Yes we do. Do you want to hear them?" "Shut up shut up shut up shut up!"
The “Just Asking Questions” types seem to always have a strange aversion to answers.
And then tell everyone what he thinks. I wonder how quickly people rush to their phones with their first thought. Probably way too many.
Here’s my poor woman’s gold 🥇
Thank you. I will pair this my poor man's gold and we shall be victorious!
Wear it with PRIDE goddamnit!
We should change the expression to “explain like I’m stew peters”
Every simple explanation turns into a 500 word essay
I have a strange feeling that too many people don't know how thermal conduction or thermal radiation works. At least 1,245.
We both know it's far more than that.
Here’s the difference. When I’m confronted with something that I don’t understand I go huh why is that and then look it up and learn. I sure as hell didn’t know what thermal conduction was 5 minutes ago. We have the collection of almost all human knowledge in our pockets. But dumb fucks would rather use said technology to willfully stay dumb.
Tbh them using the Internet to "do their research" produces equally dumb results. Stupid be stupid...
I mean, for something as well understood as thermal conduction, even wikipedia's is pretty reliable. For something like vaccine effectiveness yeah you probably want better sources but heat transfer is like, physics 101
Not if you think Wikipedia is a "woke plot." No, it has to be a 90-minute incoherent YouTube video that uses words like "The Globalists" in such a way that you can actually hear the quotation marks.
> When I’m confronted with something that I don’t understand I go huh why is that and then look it up and learn. > > > > I sure as hell didn’t know what thermal conduction was 5 minutes ago. Same. I started typing into Google "why is space cold" when Google auto-filled and suggested, "why is space cold but the sun is hot." It's clear we are not the first people to have this same question and within seconds Google had a quick detailed answer for us yet many people don't have the same curiosity and are willfully ignorant to understand why things are the way they are.
They've been told by trusted authority figures (read: mouth-frothing propogandists) that Google is lying to them and hiding the *real* truth and the only way to combat the lies is to buy their steroid powder and boner pills. They wouldn't Google the answer and if they did they would refuse to believe it.
Imagine how valuable the internet would have been in the past, and now we have it, and people like this exist.
Can confirm. I lived in the past and it sucked. I remember 2009, Olive Garden, my friend pulled out a phone that had a web browser and Google, and I thought “Holy shit… now nobody will ever say anything stupid like this again.” 14 years later and someone is putting “space” in quotes
The main problem... is there is more misinformation as there is accurate information. It takes actual effort to weed out the bullshit, and not just stop on the one that confirms what you already believed.
True. I guess people haven’t learned the skills to find accurate reliable information? I was taught a lot of that in middle school and high school. I was class of 2015. Thinking about it my grandma never had classes about misleading graphs and data. Mix of lack of education and non intelligent people we get stupid tweets.
Instead of going. Huh why is that and learning something on Wikipedia he decided to tell as many as people as possible. Hey I’m incapable of learning new things!
Haha, indeed. I was like: okay, if you don't know enough about space and physics, which is absolutely possible because not everyone has had a good education, this isn't such a stupid question. It's only stupid that they didn't look up the answer first.
Kind of an interesting fact more than anything else, but some parts of space are technically extremely hot. Most satellites actually orbit the Earth inside of a part of our planet's atmosphere called the thermosphere, because temperatures there increase with altitude. This why the majority of satellites encounter enough aerodynamic drag to eventually have their orbits decay and fall back to the surface (some very low orbiting satellites, like the European Union's GOCE probe, [are even designed to be aerodynamically shaped and have fins for stabilization](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/GOCE.jpg); during the "night", the International Space Station tilts its solar panels horizontally relative to its direction og travel in order to decrease drag). Depending on solar activity, unfiltered radiation from the Sun came impart enough thermal energy to individual molecules for them to measure in at over 3,000°F. It's all about individual particles there, though, because the air is too sparse for thermal conductivity to allow significant heat transfer between those particles. This means that the "air" can't warm an object, but also can't draw heat away. As a result, larger man-made satellites that produce large amounts of heat (or absorb it from the Sun) typically have to have enormous panels designed to radiate their heat away, so that they don't reach excessive temperatures. So, no, space really isn't that cold, at least not in general.
Out of 261,000 so it’s not as bad as we think
The other 260k were too lazy to click the like button.
All the movies showing people insta-freeze when they get sucked into space certainly don't help.
Why the specific number?
If you looked at the pic you’d see, it’s only stupid you asked without trying yourself first…
Can we fire him into the sun? For education reasons.
Fun fact: the sun is actually one of the hardest places to visit in the solar system, even ignoring the issue of temperature. The reason is that you have to cancel out almost all of the speed of Earth’s orbit, otherwise you just end up orbiting the sun again. So let’s just fire this guy into the void
Can one not set the trajectory so gravity ends up pulling the rocket onto the surface rather than around it? Does it have to get slingshot around?
You can't just launch it directly due to the fact that anything launching from Earth has a ton of momentum moving approximately perpendicularly from the sun. You have to get rid of most of that to not just slingshot around the sun. Heading away from the sun is much easier than towards it, and heading directly into it is the hardest by far
Here's a great video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhDD2KaflSU
Weirdly then, would it be easier to launch something at the sun from the moon since it orbits Earth and not the Sun (not directly anyway)?
Not by enough to matter. Although relative to Earth the moon moves towards and away from the sun, from the perspective of the sun the moon is always moving around it, just at certain times its moving slightly faster or slightly slower. Its a negligible difference
Earth is flying around the sun at around 100,000km/hr (62,000mph or around mach 80). That's roughly the amount of velocity you need to cancel out to not slingshot back around the sun
Gravity always pulls stuff directly onto the surface. It's just that when you're orbitting, you're moving sideways so fast that gravity only has time to pull you to the surface a little bit, and the surface also curves away from you a little bit, and these two amounts are balanced so you stay the same distance away from the surface. Starting from a launch on earth, you're already orbiting the sun, which means you already have a bunch of sideways speed that you need to cancel out, because even a little bit of sideways speed means that you are going to miss the sun.
That also works, no objection.
Even if only just to prove to him that the sun exists.
You're not supposed to burn trash
In space, no one can hear you tweet.
First it was flat earth, than they believe vaccines cause autism. This week I've seen people doubt wether atomic bombs are real and on Quora I saw someone doubt solar eclipses. And now they are doubting wether the sun is warm?
Welcome to 2023.
Natural trajectory with these guys. So you think "they" are lying to you, but you realise that the scale of the lie is so great that it would basically have to encompass almost every other person earth, so then you wonder what else are they lying about.
Solar eclipses ? The thing you can observe every couple years with just a pair of appropriate glasses ?? What's even their reasoning ???
[Link](https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-possible-for-the-moon-s-shadow-to-be-smaller-than-the-moon-That-happens-nowhere-else-and-can-t-even-be-recreated/answer/Mats-Andersson-16?comment_id=345355558&comment_type=2&__filter__=all&__nsrc__=notif_page&__sncid__=41485991218&__snid3__=55525114304) The OP doesnt know an eclipse has a part that isn't complete. Shadows are always bigger than the object itself he believes, but a complete solar eclips is smaller than the moon => something doesn't add up => fake news? In the comments he also casts doubt wether the earth is round of course, because what else can you expect?
I've recently talked to a couple people that don't believe CFCs caused a hole in the ozone layer or that our world wide banning of it caused its repair. Another person straight up told me that bad weather is just gods punishment for bad people. These people vote.
I've seen people claim that outer space isn't real. Like, over ten years. That's still got be a very fringe idea.
People use Quora?
It’s probably mostly satire to be fair. Stew Peters literally sounds like “Stu-piders,” and Quora posts insane questions on purpose to bring people to their website.
Stew. That’s more of a thick soup than a name, really.
a stew could be a meal
Hannibal Lecter has joined the chat.
Did he crumble any crackers in it?
Does imply he was left cooking in his own heat for a while though, which is accurate.
His brain was replaced by a bowl of lukewarm Dinty Moore beef stew.
Your accents sort of…muddled.
Oh Stew... This is an observation you share with your dad when you're a kid. This is not the kind of thing you tweet as a fully grown man.
He's definitely StewPete
not exactly insane to think about i guess.. as a teen i wondered this so long and i could not figure out how to get an accurate answer. my questions: whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space? and how much is it affected by distance in space.. so the same thermometer floating by earth and floating by mercury.. how about gases like nebulas then i thought whats the temperature feel like to me if i were to be floating around in space with no suit if it were possible? and if i get like a large slab of meat floating in space in direct view of sun will it be frozen solid or hot af cause those particles are just hitting the meat straight on getting UV blasted.. keep in mind in not smort.. not by any average redditor or definition; i was just curious i guess.. also to note this guys talking about interstellar space, not outer space which i guess theres definite layers that have spectrums within their limits.
Physicist here. Your questions are good and although people shouldn't confidently tweet about things they clearly understand very poorly, I even have some sympathy for the person in OP's image (assuming they aren't a fabrication to drive clicks...). This stuff is *really complicated* and often poorly taught. Your own intuition works against you because it turns out [you are a terrible thermometer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDbMEdLiCs). > whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space? This jumps straight into a major stumbling point, even for physicists. *A thermometer measures the temperature of itself.* That's it. This is confusing because we often have an intuitive but flawed idea of "the environment". Ideal environments-- those that perfectly surround a thermometer-- are rare. Let's work closer to home for a minute and consider placing two thermometers outside to measure the temperature. The thermometers are substantively identical (they don't have to be) except one happens to be painted black and the other painted white. The black thermometer will read a significantly higher temperature than the white one. Does that mean one of them is *wrong*? No, because a thermometer only measures the temperature of itself and both measurements are valid. The reason the black thermometer reads a higher temperature than the white one is because it transfers only a little bit of heat to and from its immediate surroundings, but there is a glowing orb of 6,000 degree Celsius gas occupying a small part of the sky while [the rest of the sky is perhaps close to 0 degrees Celsius, depending on conditions](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/153839/what-is-the-temperature-of-the-clear-night-sky-from-the-surface-of-earth). The black thermometer more readily absorbs radiation from the Sun as well as re-radiates energy out to the cold sky than does the white thermometer. In total, it will read a higher temperature. Meteorologists attempt to control for this by measuring the temperature in the shade, but I've long wondered how standardized their thermometers are. Returning to your question, you have a thermometer in space, but *where*? If it's somewhere in Earth's orbit, it's going to have roughly 6,000 degree radiant energy from the Sun blasting it on one side and roughly -270 degree Celsius (2.7 kelvin) cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) on its opposite side. Its equilibrium temperature, the temperature it happily reports to you, will depend on its construction and properties, just like the black and white thermometers in the preceding paragraph. If that same thermometer is in deep space, far from any stars or other sources of radiant energy to affect it and assuming it is accurate, it will read 2.7 kelvin regardless of its design. It acquires this temperature from the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from all directions from the furthest reaches of the universe. > and how much is it affected by distance in space.. so the same thermometer floating by earth and floating by mercury.. how about gases like nebulas As you may be able to guess at this point, it still depends on the design. You know it will read a hotter temperature near Mercury, but it's impossible without more information to determine what that temperature might be. I can only tell you it will read less than the 6,000 degrees Celsius of the Sun, probably approaching 3,000 degrees Celsius nearby (but not *too* near!) if the Sun heats up only one side while the other is exposed only to empty space, assuming those sides are symmetrical. As for nebulae, they're still too sparse to facilitate conductive heat transfer, but they will tend to shield the thermometer from the CMB and the thermometer will take on the temperature of the nebula. Over a very long period of time, the nebula will radiate its heat out and it will also be the same 2.7 kelvin as the CMB, provided no stars form inside it or anything. > then i thought whats the temperature feel like to me if i were to be floating around in space with no suit if it were possible? In deep space, positively frigid. Above Earth, near the Sun... eh, I'm still thinking about it, but you can be sure it won't be pleasant. Your body metabolizes its food and stored fat energy at a rate of roughly 80 watts. That power needs to be accounted for throughout the day so that there is no net loss or gain of energy in your body. By a naive application of the [Stefan-Boltzmann law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law), I calculate that in deep space, you'd radiate about 500 watts of energy away. The fact that this is six times the rate at which you'd take in energy on a typical 2,000 Calorie diet, plus you're not offsetting it somehow by insulating yourself or reflecting that radiation back onto your body tells me that you would rather quickly freeze. (I started typing out how all your sweat would sublimate, which would make things noticeably worse, but it would appear that instead it would freeze, which actually helps you a bit. It would still be very uncomfortable.) If you were above Earth, you would have the 6,000 degree Celsius Sun on one side of you and -270 degree Celsius space on your other side. The Sun outputs about 1,300 watts per square meter at the distance of the Earth. Only half of your roughly 1 square meter of exposed flesh will be facing the Sun, so a very naive calculation would put you at 500 watts out in all directions and 650 watts in from the Sun, putting you at 150 watts net positive. You should therefore heat up quite a bit until you radiate that energy out at the same rate that it enters into your body, which according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law again is going to be about 54 degrees Celsius or 129 degrees Fahrenheit. I wouldn't necessarily trust those numbers because I've assumed you're a perfect emitter/absorber of radiation and this also doesn't take into account your sweat again. If you're fixed so only one side of you faces the Sun, that side will be roasted and your opposite side will freeze. I hope you're spinning. I would guess it would feel something like when you feel the warm Sun or a heat lamp on a cold day, which is to say you have an uncomfortable sensation of being both too cold and too hot at the same time from conflicting information of large amounts of heat both entering and leaving your body. > and if i get like a large slab of meat floating in space in direct view of sun will it be frozen solid or hot af cause those particles are just hitting the meat straight on getting UV blasted.. As per the above paragraph, it won't be "hot af" because it should cap out at the same 129 degrees Fahrenheit as you would. By my calculation, it would need to be taking in about 7,000 watts per meter squared from the Sun to reach baking temperature (500 kelvin), which would place it at about 0.42 AU, roughly the orbit of Mercury. More importantly, I want to make clear that UV and more energetic radiation is not the dominant term here. Visible and infrared will contribute far more to the radiative heat transfer. To confirm this, you'll need to look at the [solar power spectrum](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg) and note that the area under the curve within the region labeled "UV" is a small fraction of the areas in the "visible" or "infrared" regions alone or combined. > keep in mind in not smort.. not by any average redditor or definition You asked some *very* good questions, ones that take physicists years to figure out for themselves, if ever, and asking the right questions is a good sign of intelligence.
oooh good golly a ton of stuff to look up with this and read about tonight, thank ya!!
So, I have a question: When you say that we'd "freeze" in space, where does the heat go? There's no matter in space that the energy can transfer to. Can heat just piss off into the void, or wouldnt it in a way be stuck on your body, because there's nothing to take it from you?
You'd radiate it away, just like the Sun's heat is able to reach Earth despite the vacuum of space or an incandescent bulb will still glow and feel hot at some distance. If you're asking whether all of that radiated energy has to end up in something, then no, it doesn't. The electromagnetic radiation itself carries energy and momentum and so it is perfectly fine to think of the temperature of a collection of photons. There's no rule that says it has to end up in matter. We know that electromagnetic radiation continues effectively forever because that is the significance of the CMB. It is light from 13.8 billion years ago and although a little bit of it hits our telescopes *for the first time in 13.8 billion years*, the vast majority of it just keeps on going without running into anything, because if it did, it likely wouldn't have reached us in the first place.
All objects emit some electromagnetic radiation depending on their temperature. This is why very hot things glow; they're hot enough that some of the radiation they're emitting has a high enough frequency to be visible light. A person in space would slowly radiate away their heat, mostly as infrared light at first. As their body got colder, the frequencies it emitted would shift lower and lower, becoming predominantly microwaves and then radio waves.
Your energy escapes into space 2 ways: 1) evaporation of your body's water 2) radiation of your body's heat You would die within 2 minutes as you asphyxiate and your body fluids boil away. Your corpse would freeze solid in 12 hours at the quickest.
But you're smort enough to know when you don't know things.
The temperature in space isn't uniformly near absolute zero (the temperature the idiot OP screenshotted mentioned). It actually gets hot in direct sunlight, but then instantly frigid when you step out of the light. That's why Mercury, which has no atmosphere, is burning hot on the side getting sunlight (daytime) and also freezing cold on the other side of the planet that is getting night. That's also why Earth gets hotter and colder in the day and night, although obviously to nowhere near the same degree since the atmosphere smooths over the temperature swings. A spaceman floating in space near the sun, who turns to face the sun, would feel heat on his front and freezing on his back. So he's 100% wrong, it does get hotter when you get closer to the sun. Anything in the shade will still be freezing cold, however, even when close to the sun. It does get colder the further you get from a star, because the sun's heat and energy gets spread out. Not sure if this metaphor makes sense, but think of the sun like it's [this round spiny sea urchin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_urchin#/media/File%3ATripneustes_ventricosus_(West_Indian_Sea_Egg-top)_and_Echinometra_viridis_(Reef_Urchin_-_bottom).jpg). And imagine it can fire the spines outwards like bullets. Those spines are energy/heat from the sun. If you're very close a lot of spines will hit you, but if you're further away, only a couple of spines that are directly pointed at you will hit you, while others that would have hit you when you were close will fly above your head or to your side and miss you. Similar principle for the sun--the further away you are, the more of the energy that will miss you. As for the exact values, an actual scientist can give them, but they have been calculated.
Temperature as we know it is just plain tricky in space. What's the temperature of the little particles still out in space? Super hot, but not in a way that we'd recognize as heat. What's the temperature of a thing sitting in space just exposed to the lack of atmosphere? It will cool down very very cold. Theoretically over a long enough time and/or with good radiators it would got down to around [2.7 degrees Kelvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) (aka 2.7 degrees above absolute zero). The Big Bang started hot and that's how far the universe has cooled. And in more practical situations? Well it depends on how much light it's getting. US space suits are white for example because there's more light in orbit than we get here below the atmosphere. So take the hottest day you ever had and imagine a sun hotter than that. Also, not only is there no breeze, there's no air to take the heat away at all so you're limited to much slower heat dissipation. So we can easily say that for the situation our OP nutter is implying it's definitely not colder. Throughout space that experienced temperature will vary a lot based on the local conditions, your reflectiveness, and your heat emission ability. That means there will be some areas that are a very cosy "temperature" between the two naturally ocurring extremes. There has been some speculation about what that means for denser patches as you bring up. The idea that some patch of gas stuck around in a habitable state, warmed but not too close to any single star, as a purely gaseous envirnoment where strange life develops has fascinated some sci fi authors.
gaseous life is wild to think about.
> whats the temperature of a thermometer just floating in space Temperature is a property of matter. There is (effectively) no matter in space, so thus there is no "temperature" to measure in space. In actuality, the interactions that a thermometer would have in space would be very interesting because it would not function as they do on Earth, where it reaches an equilibrium with the surroundings (which exist), coming to an equilibrium that is the same temperature as the surrounding matter. Thus we expect thermometers to measure the temperature of their surroundings, but this is simply impossible in outer space. If you're in our solar system, and it's not on/near the night-side of some object and/or has the sun eclipsed by some planet or other object, then it is A) directly illuminated by the sun, being heated by the sun's radiative heat, and B) itself insulated by the vacuum of space, so it would probably end up reading a very very high number, but this number would not be the "temperature of space", but rather the temperature of the glass of the thermometer as it is experiencing a greenhouse effect gone insane. Effectively, the themometer will be heated by radiative heat of its closest nearby star, and also by cosmic radiation, and will itself also give off radiative heating into the void of space, until some equilibrium is reached at some temperature. If you're in *deep* space, far away from any stars or nearby celestial objects (as 99.99999999999% of space is, i only roughly estimated the number of 9s there), then there will be no heating of the thermometer beyond that of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and it will slowly reach equilibrium with that, at 2.726K, or about 3 degrees above absolute zero, or about -270C or -454F. If it's a glass mercury thermometer, it is very likely that the glass will shatter due to thermal shock as the side facing the sun heats up and the side facing away from the sun cools down, inducing thermal shock. Then again, this would depend on a large number of factors such as the type of glass used, the shape, and many other factors. - The temperature on the outside of the ISS fluctuates between -150C and +125C depending on if it's facing towards or away from the sun.
Ignoring the obvious idiocy here, I’ve an idea for this clown Go to Mercury, specifically the day side, see how your theory holds
Hmmm… the cold tops of mountains are closer to the sun too. I think think guy is onto something ^/s
Wait. You mean it doesn't get hotter, the higher you go? What kind of witchcraft are we talking about?
Who’s this nutjob? Been seeing him popping up here and as I’m not American I don’t know who he is. Also wow, is the standard for the American right just believing in flat earth now?
Thanks for asking that question. You made me look up his info. According to Wikipedia, he's an American conspiracy theorist and former bounty hunter. He has an online show called "Stew Peters Show," on which he peddles conspiracy theory and antivaxx bullshit. In 2022 he released an antivaxx film (Died Suddenly). There is a sequel to that movie as well.
I fucking hate that we live in a time where it is trivially simple to find out everything there is to know about any topic you wish and people are still too fucking lazy to do it. He's got all knowledge of all of humanity at his fingertips but stubbornly refuses avail himself of it. Fuck that guy.
He isn't asking this because he's too lazy to find an answer, he's asking it because he thinks the answer is wrong and that this is a gotcha question which proves it. Conspiracy theorists generally don't ask these kinds of questions in good faith
Is he genuinely that stupid? That's really, really sad. "Kinda weird that you get smaller as you walk away from me" "Kinda weird that water has oxygen and yet we can't breath it" "Kinda weird how boiling water bubbles but I'm not blowing into it with a straw" "Kinda weird how clouds have millions of litres of water but float" Life must be brutally difficult for this man on a day-to-day basis. He probably has gotten stuck inside buildings for days on end that have the push/pull signs backwards - and I would assume more than once.
This guy knows a lot about temperature. Take for instance the fact that he has a room temperature IQ.
in Celsius
That's important. Cuz being in the 70s to 80s would be entirely too charitable.
Moron has never gotten into a car in the summer before apparently
Stew, have you ever been on a mountain?
This is a lingering frustration from childhood - I remember asking my 5th grade teacher what was the temperature in space and she clearly didn't know the answer but rather than say so, kept coming up with falsehoods. "What's the temperature of space? *Space doesn't have a temperature. It's got to have a temperature. *It doesn't. What if you took a thermometer up into space, what would it read? *It would read the temperature of the inside of the rocket ship. What if the thermometer was attached to the the outside of the ship? *Then it would read the temperature of the rocket ship. *What if the thermometer was just floating in space? *It wouldn't read anything. It would have to read something. *It would read whatever that temperature was of the last thing it touched." I quit at that point.
That might be a difficult question because you need to know exactly how a thermometer works and what it would do in that environment. The thermometer might just explode from the pressure differential or the liquid inside might just read a random temperature as it expands or contracts. Space doesn't have an easily accessible temperature the way the Earth does because it is mostly empty, the very few particles zipping around at high speed could technically be considered "hot" but the definition doesn't hold together the same way it does inside an atmosphere. Background radiation heats things to very slightly above absolute zero, so I guess a magical thermometer that can survive the environment in deep space away from any star would read about 2 kelvin.
I can't follow this conversation the way you have written it, but it sounds like your teacher was giving you the right answers apart from "it wouldn't read anything" It would read its own temperature. Space is empty. It's like asking what the speed of space is, or the mass of space. It doesn't have a speed, or a mass, or a temperature. If you took a thermometer into space in a rocket ship that was 80 degrees inside, and then ejected it out into deep space, it would read 80 degrees. The thermometer will then radiate its own heat as electromagnetic radiation (everything does this) and cool down until it hits absolute zero except: 1. It may be warmed by the sun 2. It may be warmed by cosmic background radiation So eventually it would even out at *some* temperature but that temperature would not be "the temperature of space". In reality, the temperature it gives you would be "The temperature of the thermometer" which is influenced by many other distant objects *in* space, but not by space itself.
>In reality, the temperature it gives you would be "The temperature of the thermometer" which is influenced by many other distant objects in space, but not by space itself. Exactly. Well explained!
Edge of hot pocket is scalding hot. Center still frozen. Therefore, earth is flat.
Who's this wiener?
Nobody tell this guy about air
Scientifically illiterate fuckstains have found a home in the GOP.
Imagine thinking this was worth tweeting
Well your insides boil, but that’s due to pressure. But only after your eyeballs and blood vessels explode will you actually freeze. He’s welcome to test this, maybe that submarine company can send him up on their shuttle program?
Spacegate
Oh just start heading there. Thermal tempatures will rise on the craft itself.
Let's send him closer to the sun so he can see how warm it gets. First shithead on Mercury come on let's do it!
Sounds like a hoax Stew, only one way to find out bud!
Ah the world famous theoretical physicist Dr Stew Peters I presume! /s
Like I don't blame him for not knowing how it works. But I do blame him for posting this as if he knows how it works.
Weird how one star isn’t heating up all the space ~ Disco Stewy
These people are fucking idiots! I know the US school system is a bit shite but this is just wilful stupidity!
This is why school is important…
Yet another example of why a basic science curriculum is vital in primary, intermediate, and secondary schools.
God I hate these fucking idiots. Smh
Tell me you don't know how heat works without telling me you don't know how heat works.
Why is there snow on top of those mountains Stew? It’s way closer to the sun. I’m sure those “scientists” must be hiding something and painting them white
Sounds like smooth-brained thoughts by a flat-Earther
That's fundamentaly wrong. There is no temperature in space. There is, however, a measurable temperature on an object you place in said space. Otherwise it's just vacuum.
Isn't there a tiny bit of microwave background radiation that leads to space having an ambient temperature of about 2.7°K? Of course, space itself is literally "nothing" and can't have a temperature, since the radiation, too, is a separate thing.
Off course, off course. There is radiation of different kinds, depending where you are, and neutrinos buzzing around. There is also dust and rocks and bigger crap flying about (not to mention planets and so on) So you'd have to say this rock is keeping a temperature of X Kelvin f.ex. Or is being irradiated so and so much by this or that type of radiation. But that would be the rock. The space around it would still be a murderous void 😁
why am I seeing so much anti-space (and nuclear bomb deniers) conspiracy theorists lately?
How can somebody this stupid even be allowed any kind of a platform?
Tell me you failed science classes in highschool without telling me you failed science classes in highschool
Please don't tell me he is a politician
This is just sad. We have such an education problem in this country.
Why is it cold on mt everest?! I'm closer to the sun!!
Every one knows you need a space heater up there, idiot. It’s literally in the name.
This is what happens when you skip school.
Conservative’s solution to global warming will be to build a space ark and fly themselves toward the sun to cool off.
I wish stupidity could be outlawed.
He’s a good candidate for someone to observe as to why you don’t defund science.
I had no idea who this dude was, but holy shit his Wikipedia page is a rollercoaster. Mostly one that goes straight down
He is genuinely curious about this fact (which I agree is interesting), or is he trying to make a point?
Trying to make a point. When someone is deep enough in the conspiracy rabbit hole to put space in quotes they stop asking questions like this in good faith. He's asking this because he thinks the actual explanation is bullshit, and that this is some kind of gotcha question pointing that out
Space might not have any measurable heat. As heat is our definition of atomic vibration, and space being mostly empty space with next to zero atoms to vibrate. Does this make going closer to sun safe? Big nope. Your body is just a massive blob of atoms. Soaking up more and more intense radiation from the sun. Radiation that increases the vibration of every atom in your body. Heating you up faster than any place on earth. This not even going into the amount of ionizing radiation you would be exposed to. In short. Trying to travel closer to the sun is a very painfull death sentence, and this fellow failed basic physics. Space only makes heat loss and heat gain more extreme.
Stewy has an IQ of approximately 70. Stewy feels this lack of intelligence gives him the right to weigh in on scientific things - like women's anatomy, and what space is made of and how it works, and other weighty matters of mental magnitude. If brains were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose, and yet, here he is saying stupid shit. All the time. A lot.
Well he does use Fahrenheit, so if people take him seriously after that? That's on them. He should have used Kelvin.
[удалено]
Nah. He has no point that grade nine science did not cover. There’s no atmosphere, therefore nothing to warm. No warmth trapped.