/sci/ - Science & Math

HURR DURR ALIENS DOESNT EXIST, WE ARE ALONE
Turns out the first planet we put a foot on, the closest planet to Earth HAS LIFE.
Life is more common than we could ever imagine, we would be amazed if we could take a peak of the universe only to realize that life is plentiful out there.

>>6953168
>>6953193

>Methane
>"evidence for life"
hahaha

>>6953200
Please explain why you find that funny.

>>6953193
>Turns out the first planet we put a foot on, the closest planet to Earth HAS LIFE.
citation needed

I always thought it would be funny if Mars had managed to evolve some form of intelligent life that could life there. Imagine being some weird intelligent mars creature going about your day and you see that fucking rover come down from the sky.

Like, for us we see alien life as UFOs, allegedly. But what if instead of a UFO, aliens had sent a rover to earth? Would anyone notice?

>>6953204
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon%29

>>6953217
This isn't about methane in the atmosphere. It is about an unexplained spike in methane levels, then a drop. It could very well mean some form of microbial life.

It's not guaranteed, no, but it's a logical explanation that hasn't been ruled out.

>>6953210
>yfw drones don't actually exist it's a huge cover-up for aliums

>>6953217
... and Titan is actually suspected to harbor life. Actually it is the number one contender in the Solar System, alongside Europa.

>>6953219
It's a logical explanation with no real evidence other than the methane spikes themselves. It's amazing the amount of unscientific mental gymnastics extraterrestrialists will go through to affirm their beliefs.

>>6953230
You could say the same damn thing for any other explanation. Oh, you think it has a geological explanation? Boy it's amazing the unscientific mental gymnastics those geologists will go through to affirm their beliefs.

Fuck off.

>>6953168
We've actually found these methane spikes before, and got excited about them then, for the same reasons. This isn't a discovery, it's a confirmation.

Also, there are still possible non-biological ways for the methane to be generated; although it might be life, more investigation is needed.

>>6953234
You have nothing to base your life assumption on but methane. Get fucked

>>6953234
Wow, no better than a creationist.

>>6953242
I know, right? Those damn geologists. It's like a religion or something.

>>6953245
Seriously. Why can't they just put their faith into knowing that every single data point that conflicts with our growing understanding of biology is the result of aliens existing. Obviously if we cannot explain something through our science then it must be from nebulous lifeforms somewhere out there in space, why can't they see that?

>>6953253
Nobody's saying that. What we're saying is that the chances of it being caused by life is equally as good as any other explanation. Unless you can confirm that there are no microbes on mars, you have to keep an open mind to the possibility. Right now there is evidence that *might* point to that possibility. Obviously we need to do more research on it to determine what caused it. But to dump cold water over the idea of life on mars without even determining which explanation is more likely is just as ridiculous as assuming that it is definitely a sign of life.

>>6953263
>What we're saying is that the chances of it being caused by life is equally as good as any other explanation.

And that is completely incorrect. You have detected methane. There is methane on EVERY planet for LOTS of reasons.

There is life on one planet.

So the chances that it's caused by life are very very very very very small.

Come back whenever you have more evidence or say, something that explicitly points to life.

>>6953263
>Unless you can confirm that there are no microbes on mars, you have to keep an open mind to the possibility.
Oh I totally agree. Science is all about proving negatives. If we cannot prove nonexistence, then it flows logically and wholly scientifically that existence has equal standing to other theories.

On a kind of related note, any opinions on the Great Filter essay? If we find extinct life on Mars, does it mean we're probably fucked? That whole essay kind of read like bullshit, but I don't have the knowledge to back up that claim.

>>6953274
It's not just 'detected methane'. It is a methane SPIKE. And it hasn't been attributed to anything yet, so the chances of it being caused by life are just as good of the chances of it not.

>>6953291
>>>/x/

>>6953286
The thing about the filter is that it depends on what stage of life there was. For example, if all we ever find is evidence of ancient microbial life, it stands to reason that the filter is beyond humanity already.

It really only becomes an issue for humanity if we find evidence of ancient advanced & intelligent life, like us. Then it could mean that we haven't gotten through the filter yet.

>>6953296
Oh, fuck off. You have no basis on which you disregard the possibility of microbial life having caused the spike. You haven't even offered a logical alternative explanation.

Tell me, why are you so butthurt over the possibility of life on mars? You're religious, aren't you? I bet you think earth was specially made for us by god, right?

Fuck off.

>>6953303
Sorry, my bad

>>>/r/atheism

>>6953291
>, so the chances of it being caused by life are just as good of the chances of it not.
I hate to say this, but you sound like a bunch of /b/tards I saw last night arguing about the Monty Hall problem.
"but there's only two doors left, it must be 50-50!"

>>6953296
>>6953308
>This is the best argument non-lifers have against the possibility of life on mars
Really now, and I suppose you expect others to take you seriously?

>>6953263
>Nobody's saying that. What we're saying is that the chances of it being caused by life is equally as good as any other explanation
>>6953193
>Turns out the first planet we put a foot on, the closest planet to Earth HAS LIFE.
Fuck off

>>6953303
Methane could be released from tectonic activity from pockets or strata from when the planet was formed with the rest of the solar system.

>>6953328
I'm not that idiot, and I don't think anyone is taking him seriously, so uhh.. yeah. You fuck off, bruh.

I wonder what their unit of replication is (if they do exist) - DNA, RNA or something novel?

>Mars has methane on it
>methane levels fluctuate seasonally
>this could mean that there's a possibility that the methane is associated with life
>THIS MEANS LIFE ON MARS 100% CONFIRMED WE ARE NOT ALONE

>meanwhile, Neptune and Uranus are shockingly blue and blue/green thanks to the methane and ammonia they have
>nobody's suggesting life there

NASA's budget begging has become awful to watch.

>>6953222
No, it's been suggested it has life. Quite different, there is no evidence of it.

>>6953361
I really hope they have an actual gameplan, otherwise the blowback of "You were wrong, see if we appropriate any more money for you in the future" is going to be huge. Unless they see themselves as dying anyway and this is just a last hurrah.
>>6953362
B-b-b-but if you multiply the small chances by the infinity of the universe then you get a probability of 1. So yes there is life.

>>6953168
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4413
SHIGGY DIGGY!!!

JPL specifically states this doesn't mean life..but is looking good.

>>6953361
>NASA

read JPL article. NASA never says this conclusively means life... Independent is just sensationalizing.

>>6953168
Why doesn't the bacteria travel to the surface?

>>6953368
>if you multiply the small chances by the infinity of the universe then you get a probability of 1
We're talking about biosignatures and Titan.

>>6953372

The surface is cold and vacuous, I guess. If I was a bacteria I wouldn't go there. I'd stay under the surface where it is warmer.

Is it possible that if Mars had an atmosphere long in the past that some of that atmosphere still exists in some of the terra and the organisms could have found a way to use it?

>>6953376
Through Aliens all things are possible

>>6953286
>claim
If there was life on mars, and died out, it's not totally saying that we're fucked. Mars is incredibly small, and wasn't large enough to keep it's core heating the rest, and giving a magnetosphere which shielded the planet from the harmful rays that was produced by the sun. When the magnetosphere disappeared, the sun stripped away the planet's atmosphere and oceans turning it into the dead red carcass we see through our telescopes.

>>6953253
> that conflicts with our growing understanding of biology

Care to explain how microbes on other planets conflicts with our growing understanding of biology?

>>6953330
>tectonic activity
Mars has a dead core, which means no energy source for any major tectonic activity

>>6953407
Actually, it's quite possible that Mar's core is still molten.

So we can land a vessel on a comet. How do we put enough mass into Mars moon (combine them), so that we can restart the dynamo?

>>6953230
>It's amazing the amount of unscientific mental gymnastics extraterrestrialists will go through to affirm their beliefs.
>extraterrestrialists
Are you serious? Is that the term you're using for it?

People really want to see alternate forms of life. This isn't just some "small" group of people who are desperate to find stuff like that. It would quite literally be the scientific discovery of the century.

Also, Methane spikes are something the scientific community has been actively looking for when searching for bacterial life. The higher methane content has bene common knowledge for years now, but this is the first instance we've found an isolated incident.

This wasn't just some "Oh, hey, methane. Maybe this is could be life.". It was "If we're looking for life, we need to actively seek out methane."

>>6953361
>this could mean that there's a possibility that the methane is associated with life
This is the only thing NASA stated.

>nobody's suggesting life there
Life has been suggested there.

The biggest concerns though is that those planets are harder to reach, and there's less feasible justification for focusing on them before further analysis of Mars.

>>6953443
>How do we put enough mass into Mars moon (combine them), so that we can restart the dynamo?

By taking all that energy you were going to waste hauling the Moon out to Mars and putting it towards powering a big magnetic shield over it's surface.

And now we just woke up a colossal space monster we refer to as a planet.

>>6953458
>scientific discovery of the century

try all time

>>6953210
>be Martian
>living in my cave under ground
>forced to live underground so those fucking Venusians think we are extinct and don't come to rape my 5 ass's again.
>slipping above the surface for my morning shits
>minding my own business when a shitty looking space pod comes sailing down
>out pops a miniature car
>"what kind of stupid fucking civilization sends toys to other planets?"
>proceed with fart

>>6953313
It is 50-50, the thing about monty hall is that keeping your previous decision is also a choice.

>>6953296
>>>>/x/
hahahahaha oh my god, you used the ">>>/x/" meme :^) le XDDDXDXDDXDDddDXdd wow m8, that sure made me giggle XDDD pls post more funny memes, i cant wait to see more original content

>>6953563
hahahahaha oh my god, you used the "funny meme" meme :^) le XDDDXDXDDXDDddDXdd wow m8, that sure made me giggle XDDD pls post more funny memes, i cant wait to see more original content

I think the next 2 rovers that are set for a Mars missions are designed to look for life as a primary goal.

It would be awkward if life was found before then...

>>6953577
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were microbial lifeforms on Mars. We know that kind of life can exist in extreme conditions.

At the moment, I am leaning towards thinking that microbial life might be present on pretty much every planet in some form. Or at least that it is far more commonplace in the universe than we currently know.

In short, life is not rare. Advanced life is rare. Microbes might exist pretty much everywhere, except space itself of course.

>>6953328
>Turns out the first planet we put a foot on, the closest planet to Earth HAS LIFE.
Why is that such a crazy idea to you? obviously planets that can harbor life (as we know it) are going to be easier for us to set foot on, because we evolved to the condition of a planet that also harbors life

The reason we aren't planing mission to Venus are very similar reasons as to why we don't expect to find life there.

>>6953352
If we ever find life out in space in my life time, I hope it turns out to be silicon based, would really fuck with our understanding of biology, chemistry and science in general

>>6953368
>B-b-b-but if you multiply the small chances by the infinity of the universe then you get a probability of 1. So yes there is life.

We are that life.

Also remember it's much more likely that any life that did form got wiped out by some astrological event.

biologist here
I don't think we can be hype yet.

>>6953595
>some astrological event.
>astrological event.
>astrological
heh

Since 2000, there have been EIGHT missions to mars, with another one scheduled for 2018. The 2018 one will be designed specifically to search for life.

If this does not tell you something about what is expected to be found there, then nothing will.

Mark my words: Mars has life.

>>6953625

NOTED

>>6953168
Methane is not alive.

>>6953234
Exactly, any explanation would be a leap of faith, which is why we should withhold judgement.

This is something you should have learnt in kindergarten.

>>6953291
You know that doesn't mean they found a spike made out of methane, yes?

And that there are methane gas giants?

And since when did life form in a methane environment, but for one experiment in, what, 1972?

>>6953634

Have this.

>>6953242
/thread

>>6953643
It comes with a check, yes? Can you make that a cashier's check plz?

Dear Committee:

There is no life off of this planet, because life was intentionally and specifically created on this planet, and nowhere else. It is not a random happening.

Anything to the contrary is just some demons making fun of you.

Thank you very much.

>>6953648
Why are you even on /sci/ if you're going to deny scientific advancement?

God did not create the earth or the universe. As a matter of fact, there is MORE evidence of life on Mars than there is evidence of a god or of an intelligent creator.

In other words, you're literally full of shit. Fuck off out of here.

>>6953653
I love science, and hate Scientism.

When you learn the difference, you will too.

>>6953656
And yet you did not address my point, which is that there is more pointing to life on Mars than there is the existence of god. What's your explanation for that, faggot?

>>6953657
God made Mars.

>>6953659
Oh, so now god made two planets with life on them? That's funny, you didn't say anything about that before. Neither did your religion, for that matter.

Basically you're full of shit, and so is your religion.

>>6953661
God made the Earth with life on it.

God made Mars.

Are you having trouble keeping up with this idea?

>>6953661

I almost feel bad for the brainwashed, delusional retards on this planet who think religion is still relevant in this day and age. You are victims. You were brought up believing in a lie, and apparently that lie means so much to you that you stubbornly cling to it despite evidence to the contrary.

The thing that pisses me off about it is the way it holds back humanity. I wish you would all just fucking die.

>>6953368
Dude nasa never said there was life there. They said it COULD mean life might exist in some form.

>>6953661
You're getting trolled, idiot, stop replying to him.

I almost feel bad for the brainwashed, delusional retards on this planet who think they are the highest life forms in the universe. You are victims. You were brought up believing in a lie, and apparently that lie means so much to you that you stubbornly cling to it despite evidence to the contrary.

The thing that pisses me off about it is the way it holds you back. I wish you would all just realize that God loves you and has a plan for your life.

>>6953690
>Ask for a christian apologist.
>Get a christian apologist.
>Attempt to stop all communications with christian apologist via libel.

Stay classy, /sci/

>>6953690
I doubt it. Don't forget, /pol/ is on this website. I guarantee there are legit retards on this board who believe in creationism.

>>6953687
I almost feel bad for the brainwashed, delusional fedoratards on this planet who think their uneducated opinions based on pop-sci is still relevant in this day and age. You are victims. You were brought up with shitty sensationalist pop-science, and apparently that means so much to you that you stubbornly cling to it despite evidence to the contrary. The thing that pisses me off about it is the way it holds back humanity. I wish you would all just fucking die.

>>6953699
>Anything I don't like is pop science
>Pop science is automatically discredited
Try again, faggot.

By the way, where is this "not pop science" that discredits the "pop science" in question? Please, link me to the information. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

>>6953697
How retarded do you have to be to think that nothing exploded into everything?

I guarantee you I'm not that retarded.

>>6953703
So edgy. So angry. I bet you're a hoot at parties. Or would be, if you were ever at one.

>>6953706
You clearly do not even understand the big bang then if that's what you think it was

>>6953709
>le edgy meme xDDDDDDD
retard confirmed.

>>6953661
>Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds...

>>6953712
A fictional story about impossible things happening?

>>6953716
People like you make me wish loosh farming was a real thing.

>>6953706
How did God come from nothing?

>>6953730
He did not.

He has always existed. His name is "I Am".

>>6953733
And the possibility the universe could have always existed to some extent is simply beyond your scope, then?

>>6953721
>Listening to David Icke
Look at him.. Look at him and laugh

>>6953222
>number one contender
>not enceladus

>>6953738
It's certainly beyond reason, yes. Also beyond logic, and also contrary to all known science.

>>6953694
>all of /sci/ is one person

>>6953746
>Stealing /pOl/ memes.

>>6953743
>and also contrary to all known science.
We don't know what came before the big bag, or even if there was anything at all. For all we know there could have been another universe that gave birth to this one, going back endlessly and continuing infinitely into the future.

>It's certainly beyond reason, yes. Also beyond logic
And yet a god that has always existed and doesn't need an origin is perfectly sensible.

>>6953749
I know that you don't know anything.

I just wonder why that's okay with you.

>>6953756
Nice avoiding the question and topic. We don't know what became before the big bang, but we don't know a lot of things. Yet. We don't fill those gaps with a stone age god and call it a day, we work to figure it out. There may be a day where we're pretty certain just what came before the big bang.

I wonder why it's ok with you that you don't know where god came from, or why you're ok with simply shrugging and saying "god did it" as an answer to anything currently unknown.

>>6953749
Of course an eternal God is perfectly sensible.

You guys don't need a christian apologist, you need an apology from the christian community for not teaching you the very basics.

>>6953748
>thinks memes belong to anyone

>>6953764
I find nothing at all wrong with the answer "God did it", when in fact, God did it.

I know exactly where I came from, who I am, who loves me, who accepts me, who gives my life meaning and purpose, and who I will give an account to for my life.

"Ignorance of the Law" isn't even an excuse here on earth, in front of a human judge. Do you really think it will fly before God?

>>6953769

OP here. Would finding life on Mars have any effect on the teaching of Christianity in your opinion? I'm genuinely interested.

>>6953779
Absolutely.

It would be a better attack on christianity than heliocentrism.

>>6953779
Why would you be interested in that?

This guy has shown that he has no understanding of the world around him beyond "god did it."

Why anyone would even humor this retard with a serious conversation is beyond me.

>>6953787
Scientist: Open minded, asking questions.

Scientismist: Closed minded, irrational hatred of "other".

It's good to see the difference.

>>6953765
Explain how an eternal God is sensible

Explain how an eternal multiverse is not sensible

>>6953791
God is an eternal spirit being, and has revealed Himself to humanity as such.

An eternal multiverse would now be in heat death, having attempted to pack an infinite amount of time behind us.

>>6953787

Because I'm a fedora and I read a lot of Christian arguments to better form arguments against them. It's my thing.

Even if you aren't religious I believe it is beneficial to understand the ones who are since they are such an influential slice of society.

>>6953769
>when in fact, God did it.

Based on what evidence? You're aware that the big bang theory made several predictions that have actually lined up very accurately to later observations, like the cosmic background radiation, right?

>>6953798
God placing the stars in the heavens and then stretching them out to cover the universe also accounts for CBR.

God said He did it, and He is God.

You really need to give your empiricism a little rest, and look for other ways of learning things.

You will never see outside of the box using your animal senses.

>>6953303
>My opinions are objective truths of the universe! Anyone who disagrees must be a stupid religious person because why else anyone ever disagree with me, I'm always right!

4chan is for people over the age 18. Please go back to gaia or reddit or wherever else you came from.

>>6953795
That doesn't explain anything.

>has revealed Himself to humanity as such
When? How? Why have his revelations decayed over the years from flooding the planet and appearing on a fiery chariot to just appearing on burnt toast?

How do you define a spirit? What is a spirit made of? How do you measure or observe it?

>An eternal multiverse would now be in heat death,
According to what we know now, but we already know we don't know the full picture. Current quantum theories hold out that given an arbitrarily long period of time violations of the laws of thermodynamics may happen and "something" may come from "nothing"

>>6953806
I'm glad that you agree with me that the answers science has are woefully inadequate.

God is a spirit being, and you cannot measure a spirit empirically. Which is why I urge you to find more balance in your life, and live at least part of your life away from your animal instinct and sensory input. Turns out, we're not just random accidents, but created as free will moral agents in order to live with this supernatural triune eternal spirit being we call God, or Father, depending.

I think it is important that you realize that are using what we call "faith" to see into the future and imagine that "science" will someday explain and provide everything to your heart's content, including an answer to death.

It's more faith than I can muster, for sure.

>>6953804
The stars weren't placed, they're still wandering around and moving to this day. Big bang theory makes specific predictions that closely match observed data, while Genesis only sort-of vaguely matches it close enough to bullshit your way through.

>God said He did it, and He is God.
Meaningless circular logic.

>You really need to give your empiricism a little rest,
Again based on what? What structural designs have been derived from worship? What new medicines and technologies have been discovered through prayer?

>You will never see outside of the box using your animal senses.
What other senses are there? How do we define, describe, and observe them?

Devout Christian here.

Where in the Bible does it say that there's no life on other planets?


It doesn't.

>>6953810
The stars are in fact all named by God, put into place individually, and then the heavens were stretched forth.

Which, of course, is what happened.

Current "science" at the time the bible stated this was positive that there were 1,017 stars, that the earth was flat, on a platter held by elephants, upon an infinite column of turtles.

The difference between you and I is that you think science has developed to be closer to the truth than it used to be, and I do not.

>>6953813
Hello papist. I was wondering how long one of you would take to come along.

You can take over. My work here is done. You can explain how the Big Bang was a catholic notion, and how the Catholic church believes in evolution.

I'll just rest on this.

Catholics are not christians, and there are no "devout" christians.

Just christians.

>>6953808
The point of science is to find more and more accurate answers instead of shrugging and saying "god did it". Otherwise we would still be subsistence farmers living in our own dung and thinking the sun is a giant fireball that circles the Earth.

>and you cannot measure a spirit empirically
Anything that exists can be measured and observed in some way. If it doesn't, then that means it doesn't interact with the universe and doesn't exist.

>what we call "faith" to see into the future and imagine that "science" will someday explain and provide everything to your heart's content,
Because science has been following a long standing trend of knowing more and more about the world and universe, it stands to reason we will know even more tomorrow.

>including an answer to death.
That's just a matter of slowing down the aging process and completely irrelevant.

>>6953816
>>6953819
You're laying it on a little thick here, in the future be more subtle about it and you'll get more bites.

>>6953819
I'm not Catholic.

>>6953703
The news article you read was written for general audiences aka popsci. A non popsci source would be a peer review journal paper with actual data and analysis in it for physicist readership.

>>Anything I don't like is religion
>>Religion is automatically discredited
>Try again, faggot.

>By the way, where is this "evidence" that discredits the "religion " in question? Please, link me to the information. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Double standards much?

>>6953791
>implying one is more sensible than the other

>>6953648
Point where the thread become annoying

>>6953545
>try all time
Nah, I think there are still greater discoveries.

Especially relating to chemistry and particle physics. The theory of relativity is probably more outstanding in my opinion.

>>6953855
I know what pop science is, you retard. I also know all about peer-reviewed journals. Way to jump to conclusions.

>Implying the entirety of scientific knowledge to date has not been poking one hole after another in religious teachings

Just fuck off. The evidence is all around you. When we find life on Mars, that will be even more evidence. Of course, religious apologists like you will never accept it.

Just die off already so the rest of humanity can move on with our lives free from your shitty religion.

>>6953168
>>6953779
>Would finding life on Mars have any effect on the teaching of Christianity in your opinion? I'm genuinely interested

Absolutely not. See
>http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-alien-life-will-be-discovered-but-will-not-prove-or-disprove-god-126813/
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

>>6953785
>It would be a better attack on christianity than heliocentrism.

Confirmation bias much?

Science is never going to disprove religion by it's very definition. Give up searching and learn some philosophy already.

>>6953798
You are aware that the big bang theory was created by a Catholic priest right?

>Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe

>>6953168
I agree with the posts away above. God made mars.

>>6953893
No one said otherwise. It doesn't change the fact that big bang corresponds to current observations, and most definitely disproves a recent creation.

>>6953873
>>Implying the entirety of scientific knowledge to date has not been poking one hole after another in religious teachings

HAHAHAHAHA

What's fucked up is that you seriously believe that don't you

>>6953896
You know it just so happened that I found a page in the bible Mars and bacteria life forms. The page was hidden inside other pages all along!

I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

Only sentient life would present a potential problem for Christian apologists and even then it's not a silver bullet.

Can someone explain to me how the fuck life on mars/other planets, even if it was sentient, would affect Christianity at all?

>>6953168
>NASA FINDS EVIDENCE OF 'LIFE ON MARS'
Ohmygodaweso...

>...COULD be coming from alien organisms.
But you just said...

Why is a news article about science making assumptions and flat-out lies?

>>6953810
>while Genesis only sort-of vaguely matches it close enough to bullshit your way through

Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. And that's not even "modern whitewashing": http://www.ancient.eu/article/91/

>>6953823
>The point of science is to find more and more accurate answers

The point of theology is to answer questions of metaphysics that science can never answer.

>Anything that exists can be measured and observed in some way. If it doesn't, then that means it doesn't interact with the universe and doesn't exist.

Just because you can't see god at your beck and call doesn't mean past interactions involving him didn't happen. This is the same as the fact that you can't make supernova appear at will doesn't mean they don't exist at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY

>>6953919
It wouldn't. New atheist children are just grasping at straws

>>6953168

>In 2019 it will land a 300kg rover on Mars in 2019

high quality journalism

>christian apologists ruined this thread with their delusional bullshit
I fucking hate you people so much,

>>6953313
>implying you weren't right there with them in the fray

Interesting news.

Any of the non-retards in here (i.e. not the people who clearly hope that we don't discover life on Mars for weird personal reasons) know what the next logical step is in determining whether or not the methane spike comes from microbial life? And if so, is the Mars Rover equipped to perform it?

>>6954008
I don't know for sure, but I figure the next step would be to find the microbes. And I don't think the Curiosity rover can do that.

>>6954008

Why do you need life to be on Mars? Any rational person would conclude that it died off long ago if ever.

>>6953976

Sorry, 4chan is not your personal circle jerk. Try reddit or go bitch on LiveJournal

>>6954023
If there is ant microbial life on Mars it is deep underground. There is nothing Curiosity can do short of finding geological structures indicative of life like microbial mats.

>>6954025
What is our aversion to finding life on Mars? It would be one of the most monumental discoveries ever.

>>6954008

MSL does not have the instruments to conclusively determine if there are microbes on Mars.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/

The 2020 rover will however.

>>6954038
There's a European one launching in 2018 that will be equipped to search for life, so that will probably be the one that finds it.

>>6953643
How much is that penny worth today, and why are modern designs so shit?

>>6953168
>guys guys.. something's farting on mars!

>>6954031
>It would be one of the most monumental discoveries ever

No.

>What is our aversion to finding life on Mars

You're unscientifically acting like there's already strong evidence in favor.

>>6953699
I almost feel bad for the brainwashed, delusional heretics on this planet who think their uneducated opinions based on the greater good is still relevant in this day and age. You are victims. You were brought up with shitty sensationalist heretics, and apparently that means so much to you that you stubbornly cling to it despite evidence to the contrary. The thing that pisses me off about it is the way it holds back humanity. I wish you would all just fucking die.

>>6954104
I almost feel bad for the brainwashed, delusional weeaboos on this planet who think their uneducated opinions based on the anime is still relevant in this day and age. You are victims. You were brought up with shitty sensationalist weeaboos, and apparently that means so much to you that you stubbornly cling to it despite evidence to the contrary. The thing that pisses me off about it is the way it holds back humanity. I wish you would all just fucking die.

>>6954074
20 million people have made this joke already, and it hasn't been funny even once.

>>6953947
New Atheists are just as bad as fundies. I wonder what it was like when most atheists were philosophically rigorous and not just people parroting Harris and NdGT

>>6954046

If they can manage to land it successfully.

Unlike that near zero G asteroid, Mars gives no fucks about ending a robotic probe by slamming it onto its surface at 120 meters per second if they make a mistake.

>>6954161
Oh, you mean when Atheists were murdered for not towing the party line? Gee, I don't know, you faggots killed them all.

>>6954165
If atheists killed other atheists then who is the last Atheist surviving? Is it like highlander?

I'm loving how this thread turned from skeptics questioning the validity of the claims to extra terrestrial life made, to those making such claims labeling their opposition as creationists. New Atheists just can't fucking argue for shit and it upsets me as an irreligious.

>>6954186
You're a retard. I'm not trying to argue against religion. The fact that it is clearly bullshit is enough of an argument as it is.

>>6953193
>set foot on

>>6954161
>most atheists were philosophically rigorous

If they were philosophically rigorous then they would be agnostics.

>>6954078
I said no such thing, if anything you have already made up your mind that there is no life on Mars.

How is life on other planets not an important discovery?

>>6954165
>>you mean when Atheists were murdered for not towing the party line

>implying mass atheist persecution
>implying mass atheism is only a 21st century thing

Atheism movements have failed time and time again in the past; you're not anything special.

>>6954203
>The fact that it is clearly bullshit
"I can't put it into words but <span class="math">clearly[/spoiler]"

One of the most misused words in English. Whether or not something is clear or obvious comes from the content, not the writer labelling it as such.

>>6954233
I'm throwing together Gnostic Atheists and Agnostic Atheists as a group.

>>6953585
I am pretty sure that life spread from one of the original planets supporting it to others in Solar System through meteoric impacts.
Europa, Ceres, Enceladus, Venus are highly likely candidates

90% of you are fucking fedora-flipping autists who think that they know something.
le go back to le >>>/x/ meem xDDD

>>6954233
are you serious right now? everyone is an atheist at birth. it literally means "a lack of belief in gods". most of us are agnostic atheists, which means we don't believe in gods but we're not 100% sure. don't be a fuck-stick and learn to use words correctly.

>>6954687
why do you think so? why dont you think that it could be possible that life spread from earth to other planets?

>>6954687
Venus is so damn under appreciated. It's closer than Mars and better suited for solar panels but in the past decades we had Venus Express and the failed Nozomi.
NASA hasn't send a probe since Magellan died in 1994.

>>6953230
>unexplained methane spikes could possibly indicate life!
>HAHA! FUCKING IDIOTS WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? METHANE IS EVERY WHERE AND I DONT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE OR READING COMPREHENSION THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG

>>6953230
>It's a logical explanation
... and you have a problem with that?
Back to Riddet with you

>>6953376
>The surface is cold and vacuous, I guess. If I was a bacteria I wouldn't go there. I'd stay under the surface where it is warmer.
>Is it possible that if Mars had an atmosphere long in the past that some of that atmosphere still exists in some of the terra and the organisms could have found a way to use it?

It was actually suggested that the methane map on Mars corresponds with the map of subsurface tunnels and caves where microorganism could survive

http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46038-methane-on-mars/
Concentrations of methane have been observed in 2003 and 2006 in three specific regions of Mars: Terra Sabae, Nili Fossae and Syrtis Major, and data suggest that water once flowed over these areas. Deep liquid water areas below the ice layer would be able to provide a habitat for microorganisms, or a favourable place for the hydro-geochemical production of methane. Further processing in the Martian atmosphere may play an important role that accounts for the observed seasonal variability. Whether geochemical or biochemical in origin, the variation in concentrations of methane that has been measured indicates that Mars could still be active today.

>>6953625
>Mark my words: Mars has life.
If so it would be in caves and subsurface litosphere.
To get to that you will need to have very specific robots or manned missions.
It's possible that it is easier to probe Ceres, Europa and Enceladus for life traces in geyser vapors they eject.

>>6954696
All experiments testing if life can spread through meteoric impacts have tested positive.

>>6953193
>SETI fag detected.
Why don't you ask yur alien buddies to properly educate us anon?

>>6954696
>life spread from earth to other planets?
It's harder to spread things up in a gravity well than down.

Also planetary formation dynamics meant earth was a late bloomer compared to the smaller bodies.

>>6954845
>Debris from volcanic eruptions is known to leave the atmosphere.
Could these small chunks of rock contain bacteria?
If so, could they survive in cryostasis for very lon times?

>>6954854
On both answers:Yes.
There were experiments conducted and yes they can survive ejection and descent.
There are also plenty of bacteria that survive for considerable length of time in hibernation of some sorts.

>>6953168
NASA discovers "potential evidence for extra-terrestial life" a few times every year, whenever they want to distract you from the news (Senate Intelligence Committee Torture Report Executive Summary, economic war with Russia, bill rubberstamping all domestic surveillance)

if you actually had any curiosity left, and investigated all the details of the "mars rover", you'd come away with the conclusion that anyone who believes we have a robot on mars right now is a blind fool

do you care about learning and understanding? or are you here because you want to fit in and be seen as a smart kid?

>>6954984
Good lord not again.
Why are you still posting your silly conspiracy theories on this board? You should know by now that no one will take you seriously.

>>6954986
why don't you actually go look into this?

here's a starting place: how fast was the mars lander travelling as it approached mars? how long did it take to slow down and land?

i think if you look at those numbers for a moment, you'll start seeing through this fantasy

>>6953559
underrated post

>>6954751
Exactly, so why wouldn't it be possible that a metor impact from earth spread life on other planets?

>>6954986

Did you see what happen to /pol/? They are everywhere now. Good fucking job anons.

>>6955010
*continuing
people are so obsessed to prove that we came here from somewhere that they totally excluded the possibility that life originated from earth(which shockingly has the biggest potential to sustain life).

It wouldn't be surprising to find alien life. Even here on Earth we have extremophiles that thrive in all sorts of environments that were once thought to be completely hostile to any form of life. Intelligent life, however...

>>6954994
You dumb, dumb retard.

>>6954994
>how fast was the mars lander travelling as it approached mars?
It was all made with CG.

The real rover It's actually on a planet orbiting Gliese 581 but the government don't want to reveal the existence of the FTL gateways we found on mars when we colonized it in 1989.

They will reveal ancient artifacts found on mars in 2016 or so and use it to release advanced technology to the public here on earth, but will keep the mars colony efforts under wraps while they build the AG boosters to lift the stargate to the Jovian station nexus from which is originates.

>>6953625
>Mars has life.
True, maybe whatever microbes that hitched a ride on the probes sent there. Native life? No.

>b-but muh extremeophiles
Mars dried out over 4 billion years ago. There's nothing there. Life on a planet is ubiquitous, it's only sparse if its just forming or dying out. These bullshit martian alien articles are supposed to fool people into funding projects for putting expensive toys on Mars.

This same headline gets reposted literally every month. Call me when the dust settles and they actually have reviewed the evidence and confirmed it.

b8

LOL they deleted my post! here it is again, why would this be deleted?

NASA discovers "potential evidence for extra-terrestial life" a few times every year, whenever they want to distract you from the news (Senate Intelligence Committee Torture Report Executive Summary, economic war with Russia, bill rubberstamping all domestic surveillance HR4681)

if you actually had any curiosity left, and investigated all the details of the "mars rover", you'd come away with the conclusion that anyone who believes we have a robot on mars right now is a blind fool

do you care about learning and understanding? or are you here because you want to fit in and be seen as a smart kid?

why don't you actually go look into this?

here's a starting place: how fast was the mars lander travelling as it approached mars? how long did it take to slow down and land?

i think if you look at those numbers for a moment, you'll start seeing through this fantasy

>>6954984
>>6955104
No they didn't, dense retard

>>6955110
... well there you go, proof it's been deleted (strikethrough link).

does the truth have to use censorship to protect itself? or is that what liars do?

>>6955117

Of course! The 4chan mods are all part of the conspiracy too!

>>6955117
P: the truth
Q: no need for censorship.

P--> Q

does not equal

Q --> P

you cant assume a person lies just because there is a use of censorship

>>6955125
Yeah, mods are getting paid mint to keep basement dwellers on 4chan from getting red pilled

>>6955117
The board has clear rules and off-topic shitposting is always deleted, especially when it literally belongs on /x/ or /pol/

>>6955153
>off-topic
>directly about the entire project this is based on
if you can't talk about the curiosity rover and the its landing on mars in a thread about what the curiosity rover just found... (while look at all the other tangents people have brought up)...

well they deleted my post again, i'm done with censorchan

realize that if you are asking for moderation, you are making yourself easy prey

>>6955160
Off-topic as in off-topic to the board itself. This board is not meant for conspiracy theories.

>realize that if you are asking for moderation
Every single board on here has moderation, especially blue boards, including even /x/

>easy prey
Save us enlightened man, only YOU can stop the lizardmen illuminati jews from corrupting the bastion of light and truth that is 4chan

>>6955163
>YOU can stop the lizardmen illuminati jews from corrupting the bastion of light and truth that is 4chan
>>6955096
>The real rover It's actually on a planet orbiting Gliese 581 but the government don't want to reveal the existence of the FTL gateways we found on mars when we colonized it in 1989.

see, it's you guys who posted this crazy nonsense. notice these crazy posts haven't been deleted.

but someone dares to say that if you actually had any curiosity and looked into this rover, you'd find that it was another NASA propaganda piece meant to distract you from real headlines (CIA torture, hr 4681), and its censor censor censor gb2/x/ crazy conspiracist!

>>6955184
I'm going to let you in on a little secret

Are you listening? Alright, here it goes...

Those two posts are mocking and making fun of you. They're telling you to leave, not legitimately posting crazy shit.

>>6955189
i completely understand that they have to misunderstand what i'm saying and then mock that in order to maintain the illusion in their head, yes, that's how rationalization often works

What the fuck are all these nonsense posts about?

>>6955192
Come to a thread here and claim crazy shit while providing no evidence at all other than "look it up sheeple!" and you're going to be mocked.

This isn't /x/ or /pol/ where it's normal to just spout random shit as fact.

>>6955201
while all sorts of crazy religious debate has been allowed in this thread, the mods have twice swiftly deleted my posts.

>>6955212
i can't provide evidence when my posts get deleted. i've encouraged everyone to look into this further. go look into how fast the mars lander was traveling as it approached mars, and how fast it landed. tell me you think that's actually possible.

the curiosity rover is a scientific fraud. if you had any curiosity in you, if you were actually a scientist, and you investigated the scientific claims of NASA, you wouldn't be able to believe in the Science TM of the NASA religion anymore.

this is feel-good propaganda meant to distract you from real issues (the just-released Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Torture, HR 4681), just like the moon landings distracted from the atrocities of the war in Vietnam and Operation Phoenix (the CIA's torture program of the 60s).

>>6955213
So once again, you provide no evidence at all. You can't even post these supposedly unrealistic speeds the rover traveled and landed at. I've seen the two deleted posts, and can still see them thanks to 4chanx, but you didn't bother to provide a tiny morsel of evidence, or any hard numbers for that matter, in either of them.

>>6955226
if you want to find the truth, it's not going to happen by being passive and demanding others dance for you. i provided you with breadcrumbs and challenged you to follow them, i know the answer already because i've already looked into this.

you haven't yet. what are you afraid of?

why doesn't NASA publish the radio frequencies that the mars rover uses to communicate so that we can all listen in? why do we get a "celebrity" amateur radio enthusiast who can listen in, but not the entire world?

i can't prove a negative, i can only poke holes in NASA's claims. NASA is a religion for those who consider themself enlightened, fat lot of good that has done the world in the 60 years NASA has been around.

>>6955233
Again, this is basic level debate, or even conversation, skills here. YOU were the one to make the claim, the burden of proof lies on YOU to back up that claim. Something tells me you're not posting the speeds because you yourself don't even know them, you just read some other crazy guy who thinks high speeds are impossible.

>>6955237
i've had my posts deleted twice, is that basic conversation skills? do you really use "basic level debate" to protect your ignorance instead of searching for more?

the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft had an entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2,401 kg + 390 kg of propellant), and a 899 kg (1,980 lb) mobile rover with an integrated instrument package, total weight 3,690 kg. that weight apparently was approaching Mars at velocity about 5,000 m/s due to Mars gravity working on it for a long time and no braking was taking place so the kinetic energy involved was 46.125 GJ (which is quite a lot - 12 812,5 kWh).

when the Mars atmosphere was reached parachutes were deployed to brake the space craft ... at a speed of 5,000 m/s... the Mars atmosphere is pretty thin and light and will kill you at once if you inhale it; atmospheric pressure on the Mars ground is only 6 hPa compared with a pressure of 1000 hPa on Earth. in spite of this, we are told the parachutes worked and also some EDL rockets were fired at the end.

and then the EDL and mobile rover landed peacefully at 1-2 m/s speed after 7 minutes.

it's just pure fantasy. you have to not understand anything to be able to parse that as realistic. try watching some more NASA videos where they interview the experts and specialists, the only thing these guys are good at is bullshitting.

>>6955248
Thank you for finally posting actual numbers and something more concrete than vague conspiracies.

To start, the heat shield is what does most of the braking, not the parachutes or even the final delivery system. Mars may have a much smaller atmosphere than ours, but it is still there and still significant. Certainly thick enough to kick up large dust storms and weather patterns, and the fact it would kill you is meaningless.

Wikipedia itself has it:
> The 4.5 m (15 ft) diameter heat shield, which is the largest heat shield ever flown in space,[135] reduced the velocity of the spacecraft by ablation against the Martian atmosphere, from the atmospheric interface velocity of approximately 5.8 km/s (3.6 mi/s) down to approximately 470 m/s (1,500 ft/s), where parachute deployment was possible about four minutes later.

The parachutes were NOT deployed at a speed of 5,000 m/s, so that part of your post is entirely wrong.

On the topic of parachutes, these also aren't just your normal skydiving devices
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html

The official website itself shows you everything that goes into it, and reminds you that the craft was not and could not be decelerated by parachutes alone.

>EDL and mobile rover landed peacefully at 1-2 m/s speed after 7 minutes.
Yes, it is possible to accelerate and decelerate things extremely quickly when you don't have to worry about a human crew. Machinery can handle the G-force.

>>6955258
... you think that the heat shield managed to slow the craft down from "5.8 km/s (3.6 mi/s) down to approximately 470 m/s (1,500 ft/s)" in "four minutes" in the light martian atmosphere...

this is absurd. i don't think you're putting it all together in your head. you're just looking for a NASA approved explanation. this is a 21st century religion.

>>6955266
So again, you're just crossing your arms and shaking your head and saying "nuh uh, there's no way!" While completely avoiding the fact that what you claimed was wrong.

Since your claim was disproven with literally a two minute google search, I'm going to guess you haven't put any real research into this have little curiosity on the subject yourself.

>>6955266

That make about 1.4 km/h/min of deceleration, so about 23 m/s2

2 G only. That's really small, you know ?

>>6955287
the 125 km deep Mars atmosphere is supposed to reduce the spaceship velocity during 254 seconds from 5 900 to 410 m/s by friction, which produces 17.32 MJ/kg heat. that heat is mainly absorbed by the heat shield and some may be radiated away in the atmosphere. 17.32 MJ/kg is a lot of heat.

if the heat capacity C of the heat shield is, e.g 880 J/kg°K (applicable to concrete), then 17.32 MJ applied to it will raise the temperature 19 682 °K. evidently the shield will burn up long before that. and also the parachute will go up in flames.

the whole story is absurd, it only works when you focus on just one part at a time instead of looking at the bigger picture.

>>6955315
Dafuq ? Do u even know how work an heatshield ?!

>>6955315
>17.32 MJ/kg is a lot of heat.
Which the heat shield was specifically designed to handle and easily can...

> (applicable to concrete),
Concrete isn't applicable here because it isn't made of concrete, and can handle heat much better than any concrete. The parachute won't go up in flames because it's stored away safely in its own compartment and isn't deployed until the craft has significantly slowed down thanks to the heat shield.

Here's a good place to start to see what all goes into said heat shields
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/sbag/topical_wp/EthirajVenkatapathy.pdf


This just confirms my suspicion. You've made it extremely clear that you have no interest in the topic itself and are just parroting some points you don't understand that you probably read on some guy's blog or, even worse, some 4chan post. Literally only a few minutes on google has disproven all your claims.

>>6955323
do you? if NASA had a material with that high of a specific heat capacity, it would be coating every single one of our power plants on earth.

everywhere you look in NASA's claims they have materials technology that would revolutionize the world. if only we could recreate the Saturn V, if only we could figure out what material was lining those space suits they used to protect themselves on the moon, etc etc

>>6955326
>Which the heat shield was specifically designed to handle
everywhere you question the NASA mythology, you find "specifically designed" "specially protective" material technology that would be implemented all over earth if it was real. you guys aren't looking for the truth, you're looking for someone official to say "yep they had this here thingy that made it work", these are like miracles to you guys.

>>6955328
>it would be coating every single one of our power plants on earth.
Ignoring everything from cost/benefit ratio to the fact that something that needs to withstand a greater amount of heat for only a short period of time will be fundamentally different from something that needs to be in place for years to decades.

>NASA's claims they have materials technology that would revolutionize the world
They HAVE revolutionized the world, their missions have already brought about big advancements in materials science alone. But you'd know that if you did any amount of research at all.

> the NASA mythology
Did you read the link? Have you read any of my posts? Perhaps you have, that's why you're retreating back to your vague conspiracy instead of arguing hard numbers, because every time you've tried you've been obviously wrong.

THIS is why you and other /x/tards are mocked and made fun of. In any actual debate on facts you quickly lose and it becomes obvious to everyone that you haven't put in ANY amount of research or thought into it.

>>6955336
>their missions have already brought about big advancements in materials science alone
like what? i don't think you can name 3.

>>6955349
I'm not >>6955336
But:
>advanced composite material (especially refractory composites)
>aerogel insulation
>Insulin pumps
>scratch resistant glass
>cochlear implants
>better water filters
>way more shit
I mean there's plenty of shit NASA has done research on. Stop being an >>>/x/

>>6955328
ceramic is more than capable of handling shock heating from orbital re-entry

>>6955349
You only want three?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

VERY
FIRST
GOOGLE
RESULT

You're not only profoundly ignorant, you're somehow proud of your ignorance and get upset when people here mock your stupidity

>>6955354
>>6955357
these aren't "big advancements in material sciences". they haven't produced any material that can withstand the heat tolerances they claim. they haven't produced any material that can withstand the radiation they claim.

i didn't really need more proof that you guys were the type to not look into anything deeply, to just quickly scan a google result and tell yourself you're right, to read wikipedia without realizing that it is an information battleground heavily censored by the west... but thanks, thanks for showing that you really are that lazy and dumb, and think this is proof of your intelligence and critical thought

>>6955360
Because the heatshield is ablasive.
BTW we are all payed to argue with u so you don't reveal the truth.

>>6955360
>these aren't "big advancements in material sciences"
Several of the things listed in the article have has very large impacts in industry and, yes, material science.

>they haven't produced any material that can withstand the heat tolerances they claim.
Did you read the earlier link showing tested heat shields? Even click it? Wikipedia links get thrown around in other posts to show you how basic and easy and openly available all this information is.

>information battleground heavily censored by the west
Link us to the blogs that tell you what THEY don't want you to know and hand out the REAL red pills

> thanks for showing that you really are that lazy and dumb
Every single hard claim you've made has been proven wrong and you've been laughed out for it. The times you did post any actual numbers, they not only were incorrect, they were obviously incorrect with a minute of any research, which you obviously are too lazy or too stupid to conduct on your own.

>>6955368
I wouldn't bother, mate. This guys is just a massive troll.

>>6955368
no one provided a material that could absorb the amount of heat encountered in entry in the martian atmosphere. no one explained how the heat shield could manage to slow the craft that much in that short of time in the thin martian atmosphere.

instead you kids look for the equivalent of a spelling error or typo in my arguments, and then quickly shift to insults. this is what religious people do when you point out flaws in their beliefs. this is what non-genuine people do when they want to shut down discussion.

i'll throw out another challenge: the mars curiosity rover has no antenna big enough to send a signal back to earth (look at how large they claim the satellite is that we use to send a signal to mars). the mars curiosity rover has no power source strong enough to send a signal that far (look into how much power the satellites require that we use to send signals to mars).

or, don't. be honest with yourself that you don't really care, that this is about identity to you, not about actually learning any of that boring science stuff. because if you really looked into it, you'd have to give up all these comforting beliefs, and face the reality that you've been lied to, systematically.

>>6953193
>closest planet to Earth
Venus has life?

>>6955382
>no one provided a material that could absorb the amount of heat encountered in entry in the martian atmosphere. no one explained how the heat shield could manage to slow the craft that much in that short of time in the thin martian atmosphere.


Yes we did, red the fucking thing that we wrote.

>i'll throw out another challenge: the mars curiosity rover has no antenna big enough to send a signal back to earth (look at how large they claim the satellite is that we use to send a signal to mars). the mars curiosity rover has no power source strong enough to send a signal that far (look into how much power the satellites require that we use to send signals to mars).

Because it informations are envoyed on a long period (1 day for a panorama). But yeah, to know that u must have look unto the data itself, wich u can't do.

>>6955405
>Yes we did, red the fucking thing that we wrote.
then what's the material and what's its specific heat capacity?

>Because it informations are envoyed on a long period
... you're not even sensical, not to mention that you didn't address anything about how the rover would send a signal back.

>>6955412
IT'S A FUCKING ABLASIVE U DUMBDFUCK. SPECIFIC HEAT CAPACITY HOLD NO FUCKING IMPORTANCE THERE RETARD.


>... you're not even sensical, not to mention that you didn't address anything about how the rover would send a signal back.

Big ass antenna + The power don't magicaly disapear, u know ?

>>6955096
Thats some Philip k . Dick shit right there yo.

>>6955382
>no one provided a material that could absorb the amount of heat encountered in entry in the martian atmosphere.
For the third fucking time
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/sbag/topical_wp/EthirajVenkatapathy.pdf

> no one explained how the heat shield could manage to slow the craft that much in that short of time in the thin martian atmosphere.
Which one is it? Is the Martian atmosphere so thick no heat shield can protect against it, or is it so thin it couldn't possible aerobrake with it?

>instead you kids look for the equivalent of a spelling error or typo in my arguments,
No, the one time you posted anything conrete your numbers were wrong. Not only wrong, but wildly wrong, and easily proven wrong with two minutes search.

>i'll throw out another challenge
"I've run out of excuses for my lack of argument and try to save face by moving goalposts"

>>6955096
I much prefer your reality. Can you let me cross over?

>>6955382
The heat is not absorbed. These are ablative heat shields, which slowly disintegrate dissipating the heat of reentry. The shields DO NOT absorb all the heat.
All the Mars rovers do not send data straight to Earth. They send it to one of the orbiting satellites and then those send the data to Earth.

>>6955382
The curiosity rover didn't sent its signal by itself, instead, it relies mainly on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Express, which are orbiters. The rover is able to transmit data back from the surface to the orbiter, and the orbiter is capable enough to send data back to earth.

>>6955434
>>6955441
it's amazing that you think this is physically possible. thinner atmosphere than earth providing enough "aerobraking", parachutes deployed at supersonic speeds, and all of it controlled completely by a computer algorithm.

know how i know you're not computer scientists? :^)

>>6955461
Because "computer scientists' don't exist.

+ How the upper earth athmosphere is like, to u ?

>>6955461
>:^)
You had me going, my friend

>>6955454
if you want to actually believe that, then go for it

>>6955469
this isn't a troll, it's pathetic that you guys need to keep implying that in order to cope

>>6955475
Your own screenshot and highlighted text says the rover transmits data to a satellite that then transmits to Earth.

>>6955479
yes, and 20 hours to send 250 megabits

how long did it take them to get a picture from the surface of mars after landing? maybe you should look into that

>>6955484
>maybe you should look into that
Considering everything else you've posted in this thread you obviously haven't.

>>6955499
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZX5GRPnd4U

are you really this gullible?

>>6955484
Ofc, if they were faking it they hadn't time to do it before.

+ No agence spread immediately it's result (they have like 6 week of delay for their scientist to have 1st hand material)

>>6955499
The Mars spaceship was flying like an airplane without a pilot in the Mars atmosphere for almost 1000 kilometers while descending from 125,000 to 11,000 meter altitude during 4 minutes and 14-20 seconds, we are told by NASA/JPL. This space/airplane had no wings and no means to brake other than a heat shield at the nose. In spite of this the velocity was decelerated from 13,000 to 900 mph ... by friction.

>>6955504
Yes, it was transmitted... now show it was supposedly streamed in real time.

Oh, and it also shows the heat shield you thought couldn't survive and thought was supposed to absorb most of the heat.

>>6955514
Friction's a hell of a drug. Aerobraking is used all the time for Earth re-entry, you should look into it unless you think all space travel is a vast conspiracy.

Also, the heat shield wasn't the only braking mechanism. Said parachutes and rockets also acted to slow the delivery system down further.

>>6955514
>Look guy's I don't know shit about engineering.

Please, there are ton of free course to take on the internet. At least follow one.

>>6955515
Because there is no such think as structure and margin of error.

>>6955524
What?

>>6955521
yes please anon, tell us more about aerobraking. bring some numbers that show us how aerobraking works in earth, how much we can slow down over how much distance and time, and then compare that to mars (taking into account mars' much lighter atmosphere)

if you do this, you will prove NASA are liars. there are so many avenues to do that, but you have to do it yourself. as long as you sit back and passively receive information, people will gladly feed you shiny lies

>>6955531
>if you do this, you will prove NASA are liars.
Something you haven't been able to remotely do the whole time you've flailed around this thread moving goalposts each time you're proven wrong?

>as long as you sit back and passively receive information,
So far I've been the only one actually linking and providing any information. The only figures you ever wound up posting might as well have been pulled from your ass, they probably would have been more accurate that way.

>>6955541
so you don't have any numbers to show how aerobraking works on earth, great shitpost

>>6955551
>so you don't have any numbers to show how aerobraking works on earth, great shitpost
Not him but number about aerobraking mean that 1) U are a fucking retard 2) U have no basic knowledge about how anything work and 3) That you are a troll

>>6955569
>number about aerobraking mean that U are a fucking retard
well there you go folks, this is what believing in science hoaxes will do to you

>>6955619
Because u solved navier-stoke too, btw ? Enlightens us with your knowledge, so.

>>6955382
>the mars curiosity rover has no antenna big enough to send a signal back to earth (look at how large they claim the satellite is that we use to send a signal to mars).
Prove it.
Your post shows you don't understand radio communications. Looking at the size of antennas doesn't tell you a dish is large enough without knowing the bit rate, gain and the system temperature. Having a huge reflector on one end can compensate for having a smaller antenna on the other for both transmit and receive.

As other people have said MSL doesn't comunicate directly.

>>6955628
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIaNfO1lU6s

Host Leo Laporte: “When I first heard how they were going to land Curiosity, I thought “there is no way they can do that!”

[laughs]

LL: "Now you were never able to test it, were you?"

David Oh : "We were never able to completely test the landing system... because the gravity on Earth is three times heavier that the gravity on Mars... so we can't run the landing system we'd always crash everytime on Earth... so we tested it in pieces, we did simulations... erh... we, you know, counted on data taken in the seventies, on parachutes... and did wind tunnel tests, we did everything we could... but we could never test it end to end and we could never be sure it was going to work on landing day... it was definitely not a sure thing."

[...]

LL: “So who is it who came up with the idea that ok, we will ... in fact before our coverage we had an interview with Steve Sell who, of course, was responsible for that SkyCrane... was it Steve's idea to do that? Who came up with that one?"

DO: "I don't actually know the person who came up with it... hmm... I think there's a team of people who worked on it hard...”

[...]

>tfw people actually believe this

>>6955650
So, how would u have done it, einstein ?

>>6955650
This is conspiracy level bullshit. Either argue with science and defend your claims or fuck off to /x/. Now you made claims about Curiosity not being able to communicate with Earth, show some evidence.

>>6953219
So they're saying it farted?

Ayy lmao

>>6953222
Just imagining the possible leviathans living under Europa excites me greatly

>>6955658
how is it conspiracy level bullshit to provide proof from the designers that they never really tested their landing system? that their tests on earth ended in catastrophic failures ("we'd always crash everytime on Earth") and yet worked flawlessly the first time in a completely unknown environment?

i've been arguing with science and it's been ignored. there's no material with the properties necessary for the heat shield as they claim, just as they didn't have any way to slow down to land as they claim. just as their farcical explanation for how they manage to get a signal back from Mars completely contradicts the timings of the messages they claim they received.

i think it's clear which side has continued to provide information, and has continued to promote the idea that you need to look into this more and you still have more to learn. on the other hand, the other side is full of geniuses who already know everything they need to know with nothing but insults to offer to anyone who isn't a genius like them.

>>6955693
>i've been arguing with science
>hasn't posted a single source until now
>posted wrong numbers for the rover's speed
>still doesn't understand how heat shields work

>>6955693
It's conspiracy bollocks because you are stepping away from fact into interpreting peoples interviews. Also you can't read.

>that their tests on earth ended in catastrophic failures ("we'd always crash everytime on Earth")
There were no tests on earth, those tests would lead to failure because of the higher gravity. The deployment system was tested on the ground. The rockets were not because you have to build a new system to work on earth. Rocket landings on earth have been tested many times.

>there's no material with the properties necessary for the heat shield as they claim
What properties are needed specifically? What are the techical requirements? You are making claims with no substance. If you cannot provide the parameters of the material you have no evidence.

>just as their farcical explanation for how they manage to get a signal back from Mars completely contradicts the timings of the messages they claim they received.
Evidence needed.

You are making the grand claims you have to provide evidence. You ask stating unproven claims as fact and asking for unspecified materials.

Stick to the facts and defend your claims.

STOP REPLYING
Jesus fucking Christ this guy has been shitting up threads for a week now.

>>6955696
>implying i need a source in order to think

>>6955715
>couldn't get it work on earth even once
>works on mars flawlessly
sure, if you believe that, there are other scientific expeditions with amazing perfect success rates (apollo landings)

i'm really not interested in helping you guys. you are so combative, and you admit your own ignorance on these topics and in the very next breath demand that i dispel it or you will go back to being ignorant i guess? i just don't care if you've given up so much and do so little to ever inform yourself. i've brought lots of knowledge into this thread that clearly the posters didn't know, and yet the only response is ridicule.

this is life. it's not a debate game. people will lie to you any way they can get away with, for the smallest bit of leverage against you. mommy and daddy government are not your friends, and the idea that they've prepared you for the world is absurd. they've prepared you for the slaughter.

i don't know how to reach this new generation that knows everything and yet doesn't care to look in to anything at all.

>tfw reading thread
>tfw having fun, learning stuff
>press update
>thread explodes into god-fedora shitstorm

>>6955737
>>implying i need a source in order to think
Apparently you do if you don't understand how heat shields and aerobrakes work

>couldn't get it work on earth even once
>works on mars flawlessly
He clearly said in the post that the conditions on Earth would have been useless for tests. Remember how Mars has a thinner atmosphere? Or is that fact not convenient for you anymore? Do you think Mars and Earth have the same gravity?

>>6955740
Keep reading, it turns to /x/ shitposting instead

>>6955730
>STOP REPLYING
>He said in a reply

>>6955737
>couldn't get it work on earth even once

Ah, when faced with a reasoned argument all you do is ignore it and pretend nobody said anything.

You were asked to defend your claims, you can't do that but you call other people ignorant.

>>6953193
>>6953205
Earth. He's talking about Earth.

>>6955740
What a waste

>>6955404
Not that guy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Venus thrived with life (m/b)illions of years ago. Beneath the poisonous clouds, it looks like Earth. Though, we haven't explored it nearly as much as Mars, probably because we will never set foot on Venus.

>>6955737
top kek at the rover tweeting to britney spears

remember when the curiosity rover beamed back that will.i.am song? (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20120828.html))

what more proof do you need that this is just entertaining propaganda for the masses?

>>6953222
> number one contender in the Solar System

>mfw

see >>6953741

>>6955759
what is 下げ?

>>6956349
Speaking of which, are there any proposals for Enceladus missions?

>>6955860
Or maybe someone decided it was worth the almost nil amount of effort to engage the general public to help keep them interested in the scientists playing with their expensive toys?

>>6953876
When you think about it, why would alien life disprove god?
If god is omnipotence doesn't that means he can make more life?

>>6956589
NASA is designed for the general public, and this type of entertainment is the main attraction.

they want you feeling hope and pride. they want you ignoring anything bad about the world while feeling self-righteous for your ardent belief in science and innovation. they want you believing you're a good person for believing in science...

they want you feeling stupid and insecure for not understanding this, knowing that it's nonsense and there is no understanding it. they want you to repeat back their rationalizations and debunking for them, memorizing each of their pithy defenses. they want you to shout down anyone who would question, out of your own insecurity. they want you angry that anyone would question Science TM and the miracles of the US Government.

if you had any real curiosity, you'd research more about these supposed scientific miracles. i think you're smart enough to see the truth, given enough time, but i'm also certain you haven't spent much time independently investigating this.

NASA is a religion where the government determines what is Science TM, and who can argue with them with these miracles? just like everyone knows jesus was real and the messiah because of his miracles

>>6953168
http://www.space.com/28030-mars-water-curiosity-rover.html
dont forget that they found water as well

>>6956827
Just a question, if science is what keep us at bay, why did they put something as unsientific as a song on it ?

>>6956975
>if science is what keep us at bay
this doesn't make any sense

>why did they put something as unsientific as a song on it
neither does this

>>6956986
So what the fuck do you mean ?

Science is used so no one question anything but it don't keep us at bay. WTF is going on in your sick brain ?

>>6957004
>Science is used so no one question anything but it don't keep us at bay
no, you fail completely at understanding what i'm saying, so far so that i don't even know where to begin

>>6957014
Let's begin with this :

Have u take ur meds ?

>>6953193
That Fermi paradox great filter

>>6953352
I would imagine if they were carbon based, it would be functionally equivalent to DNA, albeit with different nucleotides and encoding an entirely different set of amino acids.

>>6956986
That picture of Mars is shopped, why the FUCK would Mars, orbiting the same sun, have two?

>>6956827
Except people are able to hold more than one thing on their mind at a time. You can both be wowed and amazed by space and NASA missions, and furious over corruption or government fuck-ups. Not everyone's a one dimensional simpleton like you.

Two competing planets in one system would be so exciting. Imagine they enter the equivalent of our early 1900'. They are aware of each other existing but have no means to visit each others.

Communication would be extremely difficult due to language barriers and technological limitations.

Meanwhile both planets have plans for a total war just in case.

Once one of the planets have the technology to visit the other they would send scouts just to get a clue exactly how advanced they are.

The first official visit would be breath taking with both planets watching at the tv.

After a period of excitement and relative peace tensions would arise.
War would be inevitable.

Jesus Christ, why is life on this fagy planet so boring

>>6957246
if you're wowed and amazed by space and NASA, mission accomplished, they want idiots who are impressed by shiny graphics

>>6957348
All you're doing is saying you have the attention span of a three year old and assume everyone else does too. Don't worry, normal people can handle more than one thought and idea in their mind at a time.

>>6953168
Aliens have long been here on earth and in our skies. They have abducted people and experimented with us. Most likely, they have made contact with the US government, but that is not sure. What is sure, though, is the fact that the US government knows about their existence. They have implanted women with their seed and they have created a hybrid species between us and them. People whom have been abducted have seen the hybrids. Who these aliens are? Unknown. Do they exist? Yes. Are they ancient descendants from earth? Could be.

The reason they haven't made their existence public is unknown. This most likely has to do with the fact that they are way higher in the evolutionary chain than we are. What do we do when we want to study primates in the jungle? We observe them and try not to disturb their natural habitat. The aliens are most likely doing the same.

For thousands of years people have reported seeing bright lights in the sky, making weird and rapid motions, 90 degrees turns, etcetera. The government has seen this on the radar also. For millenia people have seen entities and other dimensional beings. These are most likely either the aliens or experiments from the aliens. Another theory is that these beings are from another dimension. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have been abducted all over the world. Ancient shamans and cultures have described accounts of abductions which have a lot in common with modern day abductions. I.e seeing bright lights, being paralyzed, seeing beings, being taken up in some sort of craft and experimented with. The ancients saw these creatures as the Gods, angels, spirits demons, and as a result religions were created through the history of time. THERE are literally THOUSANDS of documents reporting unexplained UFO sightnings made by the government. 10's and 10's of US astronauts have ADMITTED the existence of UFO's and their ALIEN ORIGIN. I am getting MAD because YOURE ALL TO FUCKING BLIND TO SEE THIS

>>6957393
>aliens are able to breed and make hybrids with humans
>evolution is a chain with "higher" or "lower" positions
>ancient lights in the sky definitely weren't comets, meteors, the moon or reflections of the moon, or plain old hallucinations
>implying a dimension is a location you can travel to and from and not just a vector of measurement

Continued.

ALL This information is open to the public, you just have to put time in it to find it. The government is laughing at all of youre dumbness because it's a fucking hide in plain sight. THEY know this so they leave it as it as because it seems to work. Look up ''John E Mack'' Harvard professor of psychology, has admitted this phenomemon and says they aren't hallucinations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcx8YE34Xw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcx8YE34Xw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcx8YE34Xw

>>6957400
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcx8YE34Xw

>>6957393
>YOURE ALL TO FUCKING BLIND TO SEE THIS

Why should I believe someone who cant even get the word "too" correct? What are you, stupid or something?

>>6957413
You're just spamming the same 2 hour video over and over again instead of forming any coherent arguments or thoughts yourself.

>>6957416
I see, somehow youtube is fucking up my link copy paste, every video has the same link even when I refresh the page.

Please go to this place then and deepen yourself into the subject. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread822773/pg1

>>6957424
>abovetopsecret

Here I have a more legit source
http://www.timecube.com/

>>6957358
>normal people
i wonder if you realize that making appeals to looking like "normal people" just makes you look insecure and self-conscious, that you look more concerned with fitting in than anything

it's ok, it's the same for all NASA believers, they want to be seen as smart so they praise "Science TM" they don't understand and think this signals their intelligence to others

to some people, it signals that you are just easy prey

>>6957436
Just crawl back to your shitposting board already. No, you're not "above the heard". You're not better or smarter then "the sheeple". You aren't fucking red pilled.

>>6957440
>you're not "above the heard". You're not better or smarter then "the sheeple". You aren't fucking red pilled.
you're so obsessed with your identity, it oozes through every post. you must be young and still struggling to figure out who you are.

why do you think you know everything you need to know already? do you think the government curriculum in school prepared you for everything you need in life? do you think that everything important you need to know will be taught in school or show up on the television?

do you really think no one would lie to you about anything?

it's so infuriating to see kids play at "loving science" and then show such little intellectual curiosity or rigor. if you really cared about anything more than your identity and how people see you, you would look into this deeper, you would learn everything you can. you wouldn't demand sources or proof, you wouldn't debate things you haven't studied. you'd see that as a place to start you research, and every thing you didn't know as an objective to learn later. but you guys have no intellectual curiosity yet and the name of this rover is a sad joke

>>6957451
>then show such little intellectual curiosity or rigor.
Aren't you the one that posted obviously wrong figures that would have been easily avoided if you spent just one minute doing research online? You seem to have really strong opinions on things you know nothing about and seem to have no interest in learning.

>>6957458
if that's your interpretation, mine is that you lack reading comprehension and/or attention to detail. realize that the way you have been trained to kneejerk respond by ignoring everything else (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) when you catch the equivalent of a typo makes a very good defense of any propaganda you've already accepted in your "education".

there is no "learning" when it comes to NASA, only belief. they hide lots of their data (or lose it completely in the case of the apollo missions), but that's only part of it. they've claimed so many impossible things by now that it's only those who have never dug into any of the sciences that can still believe.

such as having a completely AI controlled skycrane drop off a rover on the surface of Mars in just 7 minutes, where the mars EDL system went from outside of orbit to daintily lowering the rover to the ground while hovering in the air above it (guess what happened next?!) in "7 minutes of terror" (ooo, aaa!). do you really believe that fairy tale? i don't think you've looked into it at all if you do.

you love your science? put it to the test. look into this as hard you can, don't take a weak explanation for an answer. be honest and true to yourself.

>>6957506
>such as having a completely AI controlled skycrane drop off a rover on the surface of Mars in just 7 minutes, where the mars EDL system went from outside of orbit to daintily lowering the rover to the ground while hovering in the air above it (guess what happened next?!) in "7 minutes of terror" (ooo, aaa!). do you really believe that fairy tale? i don't think you've looked into it at all if you do.

What part of the Skycrane was so outlandish as to be impossible?

Worst thread of 2014

>>6957573
see: >>6955461
but you're already showing that patented lack of desire to look into anything yourself

>>6953893
Didn't he say he resented the Pope's ideas about his theory being related with the existence of God?

>>6957274
How do you consider life on this planet "boring". Humans alone are amazing animals with so many unique and amazing attributes. That brain, those hands, them legs and feet.

>>6957592

~900 mph seems like a reasonable terminal velocity in that situation, and I'm not sure what bearing the velocity has on the activation mechanism for the parachute. Again, I'm not seeing what's so outlandish as to be impossible.

>>6957653
that's not what 'terminal velocity' means, so be careful using those words together. i'll assume you meant final velocity i guess?

the idea that the thin martian atmosphere slowed the craft from 13,200 mph to 900mph in some 250 seconds is just absurd. it's not physically possible. why would they even need to deploy parachutes if the atmosphere was that good at slowing them down?

and why would they need parachutes if they were going to do a 'powered descent' after that? the EDL didn't even land. it just used what looks like the crane from one of those arcade machines to drop off a rover on the surface as it hovered above. this is just absurd fantasy and you guys never even looked into it.

>>6957393
Why would aliens be able to hybridize with humans? If they had similar enough behaviour, gestation, genitals, DNA, etc etc, they'd just be another hominid that made it into space, and that doesn't make much sense.

>>6957666
>it's not physically possible.
Baseless claim.

>why would they even need to deploy parachutes if the atmosphere was that good at slowing them down?
Terminal velocity. The same reason an airdrop can use airbags despite the fact the parachute did most of the deceleration.

>why would they need parachutes if they were going to do a 'powered descent' after that?
Less fuel and simplified aero shell separation.

>this is just absurd fantasy and you guys never even looked into it.

More baseless opinion. The crane decouple net was tested in the lab. It worked. Powered landings have also been done many times.

>>6957682
>Powered landings have also been done many times
hahahahaha, the only time we've ever gotten "powered landings" to work is on other planets

you're so blind brother

>>6957686
Other planets where the gravity is lower and it's easier to accomplish

>>6957697
the land on other planets is also spectacular. great for farming, great views, and the neighborhood is really going to be booming soon. get in while you can!

what can i put you down for? i'll sell you land on mars for just $2k/acre. it's much easier to farm because of the lower gravity, so just think of how much you'll produce!

>>6957698
What are you even on about? Tell your handlers you've had enough 4chan for the day, the habitability of the planet itself has nothing to do with it.

>>6957666
>the idea that the thin martian atmosphere slowed the craft from 13,200 mph to 900mph in some 250 seconds is just absurd.

How so? The atmosphere may be thin, but the probe's light for it's size and going at quite a speed. You can get enough force from the Martian air to pull off the de-acceleration in that time span.

>>6957708
you couldn't do that on earth, but i'm glad that you think it's possible. you clearly know nothing about aerobraking, just like the anon i challenged above on the same point

it's a religion where you don't even think it's a religion! you just know it's true because it's NASA and space and the US government and anyone that doesn't must be an evil anti-science ignorant redneck that hates learning!

>>6957714
>you couldn't do that on earth
PLEASE post the math and equations behind this that you've done proving it impossible. After the last figures you pulled out of your ass this should be hilarious.

>>6957686
No. You have no idea what you're talking about. There are many demos of this including the delta clipper, SpaceX's grasshopper, the Lunar Lander challenge, and NASA concepts like the Morpheus lander. Another one of you're bullshit claims disproven.

You have no fucking idea but you're sure you're right.

>>6957721
>SpaceX's grasshopper
never did a powered landing on Earth

>NASA concepts like the Morpheus lander
ahahahaha, watch when they tested it on earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-BY6xH2WYw

>>6957717
why don't you look into high altitude flight on earth? you'll learn something either way, but i'm pretty sure you'll learn it's impossible for the top of the martian atmosphere (which is much thinner than Earth's) to cause that much aerobraking. nothing will change your mind as long as your default stance is to rest back on your ignorance and demand others investigate for you instead of looking for yourself.

>>6957731
>asked to post any math behind claims
>just repeats claims

You're trying not to embarrass yourself but you're failing at it anyway. Come on I know you didn't pay attention in math class but I know you can pull some more numbers out for our entertainment.

>>6957731
ahahahaha i forgot the "5..4..3..2... 0.."

NASA is so smart S-M-R-T

>>6957734
look into chuck yeager's high altitude flights and why he stopped being a pilot and turned down the opportunity to be a NASA pilot. you kids are so stupid that you think someone could just paste a math equation here when there are so many different concepts involved. your short attention span combined with your lack of curiosity and the way you treat everything as a debate game will ensure that you will remain a bumbling idiot your whole life, constantly surprised by what's going on around you.

>>6957746
Still waiting for you to show the math you've done instead of parrot someone else's talking points like a trained dog

>>6957731
>impossible for the top of the martian atmosphere (which is much thinner than Earth's) to cause that much aerobraking.

Drag equation is 1/2 * air density * velocity^2 * drag coefficient * area. Ballpark figures of 0.0013 kg/m^3, 3000 m/s, 0.5 and 8 m^2 give a force that would slow a 1 ton probe down at 20G, which is what's needed for the window. Again, I'm not seeing where the glaring problem is.

>>6957758
You won't get a real reply, he doesn't know the difference between 470 and 5,000

>>6955248
>>6955258

>>6957758
>Drag equation is 1/2 * air density * velocity^2 * drag coefficient * area. Ballpark figures of 0.0013 kg/m^3, 3000 m/s, 0.5 and 8 m^2 give a force that would slow a 1 ton probe down at 20G
you skipped quite a few steps there, i hope you aren't serious with that

>>6957768
>you skipped quite a few steps there
Then post them and correct the equation

>>6957731
>never did a powered landing on Earth
That's all it did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

>ahahahaha, watch when they tested it on earth
Made several flights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11297978/NASAs-Morpheus-vertical-lander-soars-800-feet-in-the-air.html

There are dozens of examples of powered landings on earth.

>>6957770
well, just for starters: that's a simplified equation meant for a fully enclosed fluid; it's an ever further simplification to apply that to an atmosphere. not only that, but the atmosphere's density is not uniform, nor does it increase in density linearly. not only that, but we don't have any of this data we'd need about mars atmosphere to model this.

how you got "give a force that would slow a 1 ton probe down at 20G" out of that as well, i have no idea. huge leap and handwave required for that one.

how can you go a whole thread about mars lander without this picture? NASA is literally shoving their dick in your face and laughing

>>6957857
Are you a national political leader?

....are you losing the support of your citizens?

Win them back with an authentic looking space accomplishment!

NASA has the studios, the greenscreens, the experts in photo manipulation that will make YOUR space program appear as real to the masses as the real thing!

We hire actors for you from your own population to play astronauts.
We refine the process so you don't have to worry.
We provide a realistic looking rocket, launch pad and recovery program.
All you supply is the hero's welcome home party!
Call NASA Studios today and WIN BACK your popular support with an authentic looking space mission from the best.
Call 1-800-Astro-Not today! Mention the code "4chinz" for a free SJW controversy (remember tshirt-gate? diaper astronaut?)!

>>6957817
>a fully enclosed fluid
No. Enclosure wouldn't matter at supersonic speeds anyway. Hence it works for an atmosphere.

Simplified equations aren't nonsense. They exist because they have utility.

>the atmosphere's density is not uniform
It's an order of magnitude calculation.

>we don't have any of this data we'd need about mars atmosphere to model this.
Atmospheric models for Mars exist.

>how you got "give a force that would slow a 1 ton probe down at 20G" out of that as well, i have no idea. huge leap and handwave required for that one.
That's basic physics. F=ma. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>6957866
>That's basic physics. F=ma. You have no idea what you are talking about.
no, you did a simple calculation of drag and then said that solves everything when you failed to connect the force of drag to all the other forces acting on the EDL, in fact you ignored all other forces.

then you said this is "simple, basic physics" as if what happens on the surface of another planet is just simple basic physics. you seem to think we have models of mars atmosphere that work in that detail when we can barely do that on earth.

that's what it always is with NASA believers. same story every time. "it's basic, this is easy, everyone knows this, simple stuff, you're an idiot if you don't understand it" when they are literally talking about rocket science. the cognitive dissonance is mindboggling, but then again they're doing everything to cover up their own insecurity because deep down you know that you don't know what you're talking about at all, doesn't matter if you can lie to me, can you lie to yourself?

>>6957889
> all the other forces acting on the EDL
What forces? Gravity is negligible and we're only talking about the initial entry. What forces would be significant enough to throw out an order of magnitude calculation?

You avoid being specific because you haven't got a clue.

>as if what happens on the surface of another planet is just simple basic physics.
F=ma is still F=ma. You're trying to muddy the situation.

>we can barely do that on earth.
[citation needed]
No more unjustified claims from you.

What I can't wrap my head around is how someone can claim deceleration like this is impossible but isn't bothered by the fact he has no idea how to calculate it. Delusion.

>>6957906
you didn't calculate the deceleration either, you calculated drag and then said "yup that's good".

are you trying to imply that you can plug in the force of drag into F=ma and calculate deceleration that way? i really hope that's not what you're implying.

>>6957912
>you didn't calculate the deceleration either, you calculated drag and then said "yup that's good".
I literally just told you how it was done. F=ma. The drag equation gives a force. A high school student cold figure that out without having to be told what formula to use.

>i really hope that's not what you're implying.
Once again you avoid being specific. State why you think this doesn't hold.

>>6957912
>drag doesn't slow things down

there are very few things that could be actively producing methane on mars that isnt life

>>6957506
wait
are you claiming the curiosity landing was staged and curiosity doesnt exist or...?

>>6957646

He resented people and journalists using it as an argument for god since science can't answer all questions concerning metaphysics.

>>6954161
>look guise I am generalizing in order to feel smarter I am so smart

>Religion debate
Are all new? Seriously, we all know there are no theists on /sci/, stop falling for easy bait.

>>6953819
you never answered the question. dumbass

>>6953168
Catholic here.

I do hope you're not implying that all christians believe in creationism.

Just because Dawkins is a shithawk who tars everyone with the same brush doesn't mean all Christians are american fundamentalists

>>6957920
sorry, you were right. F=ma. not sure what i was thinking there, but yes, plug in those numbers into F=ma.

strangely enough, with those numbers, you get pretty much exactly the value you'd need to achieve that deceleration.

there's only one problem with this "order of magnitude" calculation: the number you used for the air density on Mars: 0.0013 kg/m^3

that's the air density on the surface of Mars.

we're talking about about the portion of the descent from around 125km altitude (the "edge" of Mars atmosphere) to about 10km altitude.

there are several orders of magnitude of difference in the density of the atmosphere from the surface of the planet to its edge. for comparison sake, look at earth's atmosphere.

so if you instantaneously calculate this based on the air density on the surface and assume that the EDL was constantly being slowed down its entire journey by the surface atmosphere, then yes, you'll get pretty much the exact answer you need.

but if you are smart enough to look into it and realize that the density of the atmosphere is orders of magnitude smaller 125km above the surface than it is on the surface, then you'll start to realize that none of NASA's calculations add up... and that there is a really good reason that they refuse to detail what angle they entered the atmosphere at (so that we could debunk them). same as they won't give out any more information on the density of Mars atmosphere except for that surface number. same as they won't tell me what radio frequency they use to communicate with their rovers so that i could listen in as well.

anyways, once again, sorry for getting that part wrong, thanks for making me not be lazy and do the work... i just hope you did as well :^)

>>6958862
Not him but it don't plot even near.

it's about 1250 000 m/s lost and not the 5000, so the estimation was good.

>>6958889
i don't think you understand as what you say sounds unintelligible. show your work?

>>6958907
20*250*250 = 1250 000

>>6959469
that's not showing your work, you're being evasive for a reason