NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[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.

[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.

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.

Hey man thanks for taking the time to look into it, most won't bother.

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.

[Freedom]

NASA’s Insight Mars Lander arrives on the Red Planet, ends successful journey

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

[Freedom]

Touchdown triumph for Nasa's Mars probe

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46351114

[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.