NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[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

[Batman]

Touchdown triumph for Nasa's Mars probe

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

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.

[Spicoli]

In fairness it does look like a comic book illustration with early "pics" . I have no doubt it happened though. Apparently Mars is round also.