NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Freedom]

NASA’s InSight Mars Lander set for historic touch down on the Red Planet

https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...the-red-planet



We are fortunate live in this era of great scientific advances.

[Alpha]

The flat earth troll stuff is really weird(and funny) to read (the ancient Greeks worked it out over two thousand years ago).Even though it total troll stuff or the words of the deranged or both(aka kanye west), it is actually a really good oportunity for people to learn some physics and astronomy(and that satellites really don't defy the second law of thermodynamics.... errrr wot), so you can learn some stuff rather than the earth is round coz it looks round. Astronomy is actually pretty cool.

How did they measure the temperature of the thermosphere in the first place? Because the gas particles in the thermosphere are spread to far apart that not enough particles collide with the tip of a thermometer to make it show a hot temperature, because heat is actually kenetic energy and a thermometer works basically by measuring the energy being transferred to it.

The first law of thermal dynamics basically says heat is kenetic energy.

The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that in terms of heat, will move to a colder area, because something that's hot/ heat has a higher energy than the energy in something that's cold.

It would be great if people could actually learn something.

[TitoFan]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

[walrus]

@Alpha @TitoFan just came across this thought it was fitting.

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that a proposed Russian mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real, though he appeared to be making a joke.

“We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they’ve been there or not,” said Dmitry Rogozin in a video posted Saturday on Twitter.

Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.

The Soviet Union abandoned its lunar program in the mid-1970s after four experimental moon rockets exploded.

https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de

[goti71]

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

[Alpha]

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.

[goti71]

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.

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.

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.

[TitoFan]

@Alpha @TitoFan just came across this thought it was fitting.

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that a proposed Russian mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real, though he appeared to be making a joke.

“We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they’ve been there or not,” said Dmitry Rogozin in a video posted Saturday on Twitter.

Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.

The Soviet Union abandoned its lunar program in the mid-1970s after four experimental moon rockets exploded.

https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de

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.

[Alpha]

@Alpha @TitoFan just came across this thought it was fitting.

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that a proposed Russian mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real, though he appeared to be making a joke.

“We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they’ve been there or not,” said Dmitry Rogozin in a video posted Saturday on Twitter.

Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.

The Soviet Union abandoned its lunar program in the mid-1970s after four experimental moon rockets exploded.

https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de

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.

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.

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

[Freedom]

A look at some of the best images from Mars

[Alpha]

So are these the ones from Greenland or Devon Island? Fake, fake, fake, fake.

No one ever got back to me about all the dirt on the lens cap but the very next photo they released, there was no dirt to be seen.

We should start a GoFundMe for NASA to get a bunch of GoPro's to attach everywhere 'next time', obviously 50 million a day only goes so far.

[Spicoli]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

I'm just saying by you're reasoning the pool table example can be used. Just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is as well.

Sure planets look round, but solid? Take a look yourself if you get the chance. They look nothing like NASA's 'super' telescope images. Like I mentioned, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'.

We only ever see 1 side of the moon from earth. Take away NASA's fake images and you can see the possibility of it being a disc.

[Freedom]

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.

I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.