Printable View
It's about hydrostatic equilibrium. Meaning that if a body has enough mass, it morphs into a spheroid shape. Like water droplets in if there was no air. Bodies that are big enough end up like that because of this effect (see the dwarf planets Ceres, Eiris, etc. They are all round, but smaller stuff just stays a potatoe forever, like mars' potatoe moons Phobos and Deimos).
Scroll down to check out Planetary geology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydros...m#Astrophysics
When the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I'd be surprised if they had never said anything in that regard, even kidding. It was after all, a race to the moon, and for all intents and purposes the U.S. won the race. I know I'd be checking. ;D
Which begs the question I posed awhile back about why they wouldn't finish the race. Bugger all the money we've spent on this (not our money as well) we're giving up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I'd be surprised if they had never said anything in that regard, even kidding. It was after all, a race to the moon, and for all intents and purposes the U.S. won the race. I know I'd be checking. ;D
Had to look that one up. The experiment was based on the belief in a so-called "luminiferious ether", the substance supposedly needed to transmit light, just as sound needs air/solids/fluids to get across.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWhen the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
The problem is that there is no such ether, and light itself is made of photons; it's the photons themselves that travel, without needing any supporting material. The starting point of the experiment was flawed anyway.
But in any case, what's your point?
That a nineteenth century experiment failed to prove the motion of the earth?
Ok. 19th century scientists would have failed to prove the exeitence of genes, germs, black holes, etc.
They were on the right track though by looking for things that can't be seen by the naked eye.
BTW, the theory of relativity has been confirmed by science.
And regarding the Morley experiment, see the second postulate of special relativity:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Hey man thanks for taking the time to look into it, most won't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71Had to look that one up. The experiment was based on the belief in a so-called "luminiferious ether", the substance supposedly needed to transmit light, just as sound needs air/solids/fluids to get across.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWhen the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
The problem is that there is no such ether, and light itself is made of photons; it's the photons themselves that travel, without needing any supporting material. The starting point of the experiment was flawed anyway.
But in any case, what's your point?
That a nineteenth century experiment failed to prove the motion of the earth?
Ok. 19th century scientists would have failed to prove the exeitence of genes, germs, black holes, etc.
They were on the right track though by looking for things that can't be seen by the naked eye.
BTW, the theory of relativity has been confirmed by science.
And regarding the Morley experiment, see the second postulate of special relativity:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Einstein had to discard the ether for his theory to work. Relativity is still hotly contested in scientific circles today, even after all these years. Michelson, Millikan, Essen, Rutherford, Ives, Mach, and even Tesla believe relativity was false. History is written more by popularity than fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There is a reason these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Like the story of the emperors new suit, everyone goes along, it took a child to say aloud he was naked. Lorentz (1 of Einsteins mentors) suggested to him that relativity reintroduced the ether. Einstein's paper published in 1920, suggests that Einstein saw spacetime itself as the 'new ether'. However this perspective was never popularized and the ether was slowly forgotten as a "metaphysical" artifact of a previous scientific era.
Einstein's view of spacetime as a continuous background fabric that connects everything in the universe could appropriately be defined as ether.
NASA’s Insight Mars Lander arrives on the Red Planet, ends successful journey
https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...-on-red-planet
https://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.c....jpg?tl=1&ve=1
Touchdown triumph for Nasa's Mars probe
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46351114
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cp...sion_v2-nc.png
I watched this live, it took me a while to make sense of that first image but it's pretty amazing what they have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
In fairness it does look like a comic book illustration with early "pics" :scratchchin:. I have no doubt it happened though. Apparently Mars is round also.
Lol live steaming from all those miles away ;D
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lony-2040.html
Russia will establish a moon colony by 2040, the space agency announced
Getting a human-crewed landing to set up a lunar base is the top priority
News comes just after NASA revealed it plans to take America back to the moon using private firms
Moon colony? They're gonna need a bigger studio to pull that off.
Here's my take on this recent farce:
The first photo with the lens cap on, note all the dust/ dirt on the lens cover. Then check the photo NASA released about an hour later, no dirt/ dust present on anything in that picture. Maybe it gave itself a little clean first. Any footage of this?
Why aren't they using Go pro's? They are cheap, tiny, powerful and take 4k video. Go pro's are on everything now in 2018. Where's the 4k video of this supposed landing? Everything is CGI.
What are all those crisis actors doing? There's supposedly a 7 minute delay. If anything went wrong it would have already happened before they knew and could do anything to change it. It's all preprogrammed, it has to be. They are all looking at data, not live camera footage. All the tax payer money for these guys that have no control over anything.
All the data supposedly being sent back is all mathmatical, and can easily be simulated from a main frame computer, that runs a program. Everything they are looking at and doing, can all be done in a computer. It's that easy. Have we ever heard of this type of computer existing? Have a listen to what Dr James Gates says, that there is 'computer code written into the fabric of the cosmos'. No it's because space that you have been taught is really a mathematical computer program.
Why wouldn't they land near one of the other rovers, so they could film it?
No they need to land on a flat area so they can dig down 16 feet to measure the internal temperature of Mars. 16 feet to measure the internal temperature of a planet?
And a tone confirms we've landed on Mars?
It's all a total fabrication.
NASA's InSight Mars Lander reveals stunningly clear pictures of the Red Planet
https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...the-red-planet