6 ms·

10/10 satire

by enlyth 6y ago

10/10 satire

wiz21c 6y ago
yeah, but as someone not educated in those matters, could someone compare the "fake" computations from the comment to real ones ? So we could see how wrong they are...
- cosmonaughty 6y ago
  Perfect example of Dunning Kreuger! To answer your question you could get a physics textbook. The numbers I provided you are the official numbers. 610 pascals, or 0.088% earth pressure. A stuffed bear with a normal parachute would hit the ground at terminal velocity with only 600 pascals of air buoyancy.
- danparsonson 6y ago
  I don't have figures for you, but some food for thought - a) 'wind-carved' rocks are not really carved by the wind itself but by particles carried on the wind, and Mars is regularly subject to large dust storms (see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of-martian-dust-storms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of... - sorry it's a NASA link, hopefully everyone can see through the grifting, or whatever), b) the vast timescales involved - who knows how many hundreds of thousands of years that rock has been sitting there, slowly weathering away?
- cosmonaughty 6y ago
  Simple division, density differential, Newton's law, and the square equation of fluid resistance, put the lie to this Hollywood rover landing. When a object is descending in a fluid (gas or liquid) both Newton's law and the fluid drag differential law apply. The thinner the fluid, the more thrust is required to counteract Newton's law of remaining in motion. You would need an exponentially greater amount of thrust to slow a descent in a fluid 100x thinner. Imagine that the ocean is Earth's atmosphere, and a rocket enters the ocean, and is descending toward the bottom to land. Think about how much thrust is required to slow the descent. Now imagine Earth's atmosphere is the atmosphere of Mars. How much more thrust is required to slow the rockets descent, as compared to descent in water. NASA says that earth's atmosphere is over 100x denser than the atmosphere of Mars. Remember the analogy of the required thrust in water versus required thrust in air, to halt descent. The differential between all three or any two of the three is enormous. Really, that is all you need to prove that no way, no how did an landing module plummet at those speeds in a thin Martian atmosphere, with a tiny chute, then come to rest with a short rocket burst. Everything in the video is consistent with a descent and landing in Earth atmosphere, not Mars. Adding to proof of the fraud is the audio clips. There is no human audible sound in atmosphere as thin as Mars. Human ears are designed for vibration in Earth air. The human audible vibrations cannot even cause molecules to pass the vibration in a 100x thinner atmosphere. The audio proves, if anything, that the events were recorded on earth. Another evidence of fraud is NASA's claim of dust storms and lots of dust in the Mars atmosphere. With atmosphere 100x thinner than Earth's, the space between gas molecules cannot provide the buoyancy or ion concentration to hold and lift up all that dust. There should be virtually no dust in a super thin, Martian atmosphere. 50 years of predictive programming via sci fi movies has caused people to readily believe that screenplay is reality. Question authority. It's always lying.

10/10 satire

by enlyth 6y ago

10/10 satire

yeah, but as someone not educated in those matters, could someone compare the "fake" computations from the comment to real ones ? So we could see how wrong they are...

cosmonaughty 6y ago
Perfect example of Dunning Kreuger! To answer your question you could get a physics textbook. The numbers I provided you are the official numbers. 610 pascals, or 0.088% earth pressure. A stuffed bear with a normal parachute would hit the ground at terminal velocity with only 600 pascals of air buoyancy.
danparsonson 6y ago
I don't have figures for you, but some food for thought - a) 'wind-carved' rocks are not really carved by the wind itself but by particles carried on the wind, and Mars is regularly subject to large dust storms (see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of-martian-dust-storms https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of... - sorry it's a NASA link, hopefully everyone can see through the grifting, or whatever), b) the vast timescales involved - who knows how many hundreds of thousands of years that rock has been sitting there, slowly weathering away?
cosmonaughty 6y ago
Simple division, density differential, Newton's law, and the square equation of fluid resistance, put the lie to this Hollywood rover landing. When a object is descending in a fluid (gas or liquid) both Newton's law and the fluid drag differential law apply. The thinner the fluid, the more thrust is required to counteract Newton's law of remaining in motion. You would need an exponentially greater amount of thrust to slow a descent in a fluid 100x thinner. Imagine that the ocean is Earth's atmosphere, and a rocket enters the ocean, and is descending toward the bottom to land. Think about how much thrust is required to slow the descent. Now imagine Earth's atmosphere is the atmosphere of Mars. How much more thrust is required to slow the rockets descent, as compared to descent in water. NASA says that earth's atmosphere is over 100x denser than the atmosphere of Mars. Remember the analogy of the required thrust in water versus required thrust in air, to halt descent. The differential between all three or any two of the three is enormous. Really, that is all you need to prove that no way, no how did an landing module plummet at those speeds in a thin Martian atmosphere, with a tiny chute, then come to rest with a short rocket burst. Everything in the video is consistent with a descent and landing in Earth atmosphere, not Mars. Adding to proof of the fraud is the audio clips. There is no human audible sound in atmosphere as thin as Mars. Human ears are designed for vibration in Earth air. The human audible vibrations cannot even cause molecules to pass the vibration in a 100x thinner atmosphere. The audio proves, if anything, that the events were recorded on earth. Another evidence of fraud is NASA's claim of dust storms and lots of dust in the Mars atmosphere. With atmosphere 100x thinner than Earth's, the space between gas molecules cannot provide the buoyancy or ion concentration to hold and lift up all that dust. There should be virtually no dust in a super thin, Martian atmosphere. 50 years of predictive programming via sci fi movies has caused people to readily believe that screenplay is reality. Question authority. It's always lying.