Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Martian earthworks and parallel tracks.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Their ours, meaning someone of a equal nature to ours.

This can mean a lot of things to those who don't know the truth.

3 things I will tell you, sir, 1. Gravity is a EM force, 2. Every planet is Hollow, and 3. Every planet is Liveable without a need to have a apparatus to breath.

Star to you sir.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Their ours, meaning someone of a equal nature to ours.

This can mean a lot of things to those who don't know the truth.

3 things I will tell you, sir, 1. Gravity is a EM force, 2. Every planet is Hollow, and 3. Every planet is Liveable without a need to have a apparatus to breath.

Star to you sir.


what??

1) no it's not
2) not they're not
3) no they're not, for life as we know it.




This (Opportunity Sol 2171 link below) is clearly someone doing something on the ground and it is unlikely to be done by Martians just running around in circles, but is more likely to be done by a machine of some kind. I have done this kind of thing on the beach with my car and so that, to me, gives more weight to the argument that it may have been caused by a vehicle of some kind. There are also the parallel tracks which go off towards the top right.

Are we supposed to think these tracks are made by the Rover? I dont think they can go fast enough to create this kind of disturbace on the ground. Even if it is soft ground, it would probably not look as churned-up as this does if the Rover had done it.


yeah, it was our rover.
if you'd been to mars and knew what it's actually like, or provided some evidence to prove your hypothesis, i might give your opinion more than five minutes on ats.. "even if" and "probably" don't cut it, if you want a bunch of online randoms to believe your delusion, you'll have to do better than that.
edit on 27-7-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Bloch wall.

But since your like any orthodox scientist that hasn't studied the kind of science that is in the deep underground bases that were built by the corrupt powers of today.

1. Gravity is a EM force that operates at 1 Terahertz, with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm, a limited penetration of 50 miles, and is found in between the infrared and radar band of the EM spectra. The further you go down into Earth, the less influence gravity has over you.

2. Every planet is Hollow, if this was false, then we would be cooking, off course and shattered.

3. Every planet is livable, who said that we need oxygen to live? In Hollow Earth, you don't need to breath, your heart stops yet you still live. Example, Venus. We are told that it's a 863 °F surface heat and has a acid cloud looming over it. If this were true, then it would be a blob right now. But it's now.

Some unorthodox scientist figured that out and wrote a couple of books on their findings. Very interesting, but very thought provoking.

One device that uses gravity as a means of propulsion is called EHD drive. Using today's electricity would get it hardly anywhere, but use another kind of electricity, and it'll beat a jet engine's speed and acceleration within a Second.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The image below is made up of totally random dots. Our brains are hardwired to find patterns, and we see parallel lines and lines crossing:




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
1. Gravity is a EM force that operates at 1 Terahertz, with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm,


This shows you have no understanding at all of physics, or science.
A 1 Terahertz wave has a wavelength of 299.792458 micrometres

It cannot change....



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by tachyonmind
 



Bloch wall.


uh huh.. and? what are you saying?

a bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetisation changes from its value in one domain to that in the next.


But since your like any orthodox scientist that hasn't studied the kind of science that is in the deep underground bases that were built by the corrupt powers of today.


you have a point there i concede, i do study actual science, rather than that of imaginary subterranean government agents.


1. Gravity is a EM force that operates at 1 Terahertz, with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm, a limited penetration of 50 miles, and is found in between the infrared and radar band of the EM spectra. The further you go down into Earth, the less influence gravity has over you.


gravity behaves nothing like an electromagnetic force.

gravitation is by definition the bending of spacetime by an object with mass. the equation is
F = G m^1 m^2 / r^2
where F is the force between two masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

electric and magnetic fields can be generated in the lab by moving charges; gravity can't.

they are independent; gravity depends on mass and electromagnetism depends on charge and velocity: you can have a large mass with no charge or a small mass with a large charge.

magnetism only affects certain types of materials; gravity is produced by, and affects, all matter and energy.

gravity only attracts; magnetism/electricity attracts and repels.

gravity follows an inverse square law; magnetism/electricity follow an inverse cube law.

gravity causes gravitational lensing; magnetism/electricity don't.

gravity can't be shielded; magnetism/electricity can.

em fields are vector fields, gravity is a tensor field.

the gravitational field is self-interacting, the em field is not.

gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker then electromagnetism

the gravitational field is described by completely different laws than em fields, both qualitatively and quantitatively...

and so on..


2. Every planet is Hollow, if this was false, then we would be cooking, off course and shattered.


this is nonsense. the picture of the structure of the earth that has been arrived at through the study of seismic waves is the opposite of hollow. the earth's interior is made up of layers of molten rock and various elements, in the mantle and core.

how the hell would a hollow planet form? massive objects tend to clump together gravitationally, creating non-hollow spherical objects we call stars and planets. the solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy of a physical object; having hollowness is unfavorable in the energetic sense. in addition, ordinary matter is not strong enough to support a hollow shape of planetary size against the force of gravity; a planet-sized hollow shell with the known, observed thickness of the earth's crust, would not be able to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium with its own mass and would collapse.

the mass of the planet also indicates that a hollow planet hypothesis is unfeasible. should the earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower than it is.


3. Every planet is livable, who said that we need oxygen to live? In Hollow Earth, you don't need to breath, your heart stops yet you still live. Example, Venus. We are told that it's a 863 °F surface heat and has a acid cloud looming over it. If this were true, then it would be a blob right now. But it's now.


who said we need oxygen to live? seriously? it doesn't matter who says it, it's a friggin fact. explain SUFFOCATION then. 65% of a human being's mass is oxygen, without it, we don't exist.

what do you mean venus would be a blob? define "blob".


Some unorthodox scientist figured that out and wrote a couple of books on their findings. Very interesting, but very thought provoking.


i think you mean unqualified, or unhinged, rather than unorthodox. got a name? a scientific paper? anything that even resembles actual research?


One device that uses gravity as a means of propulsion is called EHD drive. Using today's electricity would get it hardly anywhere, but use another kind of electricity, and it'll beat a jet engine's speed and acceleration within a Second.


electrohydrodynamics (EHD), also known as electro-fluid-dynamics (EFD) or electrokinetics, is the study of the dynamics of electrically charged fluids. it has nothing to do with gravitation.

what's this other "kind" of electricity? how many kinds are there? i thought electricity was the flow of electric charge, is that incorrect? is there another kind of electrical charge that behaves unlike all others?


Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
1. Gravity is a EM force that operates at 1 Terahertz, with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm,


This shows you have no understanding at all of physics, or science.
A 1 Terahertz wave has a wavelength of 299.792458 micrometres

It cannot change....


exactly.
edit on 27-7-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo

I think there is a war going on between two different species and one routs out the other and destroys the city/civilisation. This is what is being shown in these photos not evidence for a bunch of speed-crazy scientists.



I'd like to know what about these pictures led you to the conclusion that there is a war going on between two different species? Also why two different species? Why couldn't it have been the same species and a civil war? or same species and a renegade band of terrorists? If there are cities and civilisations being destroyed by one or more species on mars then why are there no rubble piles or twisted metal debris fields?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
And I would like you to show me the rover tracks leading up to these ground disturbances. I have pointed to maps of the route and no-one has been able to sugest with any reasonable explanation why the rover is the creator of these marks.

I will post more ground disturbances close to the rovers and there are circumstances where it is almost certain that something has attacked the area.

It may well be looking for food like an anteater destroying a termite's nest or a badger or fox digging up the ground looking for mice/worms etc.

Of course, I have no idea what is the cause of these earthworks in a foreign environment, but I see "rover tracks" which are NOT real rover tracks and I know that this is evidence which points to something not from Earth.

Actually, yesterday I looked at the images again and it seems like the parallel lines which appear to be tracks are in fact perhaps covered-up blacked-out pipe lines running up the small hill. Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
And I would like you to show me the rover tracks leading up to these ground disturbances. I have pointed to maps of the route and no-one has been able to sugest with any reasonable explanation why the rover is the creator of these marks.


in this image, it looks just like other rover tracks, you can't see the tracks coming in from the right because of the contour of the land and the rocky outcrops in front of them. the tracks appear to stop before the left end of image.

in this image, i can't make out any tracks or anything unusual at all.


I will post more ground disturbances close to the rovers and there are circumstances where it is almost certain that something has attacked the area.


looking forward to it. although if the land appears to have been "attacked", might i suggest impact craters? natural erosion? digging by the rover? all of these are more likely than alien warfare.


It may well be looking for food like an anteater destroying a termite's nest or a badger or fox digging up the ground looking for mice/worms etc.

Of course, I have no idea what is the cause of these earthworks in a foreign environment, but I see "rover tracks" which are NOT real rover tracks and I know that this is evidence which points to something not from Earth.


so first you say you have no idea what caused the tracks, then you say they are rover tracks which are not real rover tracks, then you say this is evidence they were caused by something not from earth.

this is evidence of nothing. you are just blindly speculating about martian creatures and wars between species, when the obvious truth is that they are tracks from our rover.


Actually, yesterday I looked at the images again and it seems like the parallel lines which appear to be tracks are in fact perhaps covered-up blacked-out pipe lines running up the small hill. Just a thought.


more blind speculation with nothing to back it up. if you want to do a critical analysis then you're going to have to start with the simplest explanation and if it doesn't add up then work from there. the simplest explanation is that these are tracks from our rover, and i see no reason to suspect they are not.

I think you need to work on your critical thinking.


Ockham's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

wikiwikiwah
edit on 28-7-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
In the second link you posted how can you NOT notice the huge black blobs on the right of the image. That in itself does not make sense. They are not shadows, so what are they?

The earthworks at the bottom of the slope are really not rover tracks and they are not rocks either. There are other images of rover tracks but none are so deep as we have here in this image. Even with soft ground, the rover tracks are not that deep because they have wide wheels to enable them to NOT get stuck. The rovers cannot go fast enough to cause that amount of soil to be thrown up and if they went into soft sand which might possibly cause this amount of ridges, then they would get stuck like Spirit did.

So now please show me where on the map this happened and where in the image archive there are picture of the rover doing this particular 'wheelie". I dont know why you think there is nothin unusual in this image.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
In the second link you posted how can you NOT notice the huge black blobs on the right of the image. That in itself does not make sense. They are not shadows, so what are they?

i did notice those roundish rocks casting shadows.. i don't know why you think they are not.


The earthworks at the bottom of the slope are really not rover tracks and they are not rocks either. There are other images of rover tracks but none are so deep as we have here in this image. Even with soft ground, the rover tracks are not that deep because they have wide wheels to enable them to NOT get stuck. The rovers cannot go fast enough to cause that amount of soil to be thrown up and if they went into soft sand which might possibly cause this amount of ridges, then they would get stuck like Spirit did.

again i'm going to have to pull you up on unnecessary speculation, it's is entirely possible these tracks were made by the new rover in a deeper patch of soft land. obviously mister rover didn't get stuck, and other posters have already mentioned the perfectly reasonable explanation of "scuffing".


So now please show me where on the map this happened and where in the image archive there are picture of the rover doing this particular 'wheelie". I dont know why you think there is nothin unusual in this image.

i'm not sure what you are asking me to show you.. a map of mars with the route the rover has taken? i don't think it takes pictures of itself doing wheelies..

i don't know why you think there is anything unusual in these images. although admittedly the surface of mars is pretty unusual to earthbound humans..



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 




uh huh.. and? what are you saying?

a Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetism changes from its value in one domain to that in the next.


Bloch wall. Located on the EM spectra and it's that tiny sliver that is what gravity operates on.




you have a point there i concede, i do study actual science, rather than that of imaginary subterranean government agents.


Not imaginary. Not even the least of the sense imaginary. Tesla founded such a thing, but more like rediscovered such a thing along with a box that can replace the Four Corner Power Complex indefinitely.

Your actual science cannot figure out how to use gravity as a means of propulsion so that we can eliminate so many useless things, such as gas.




gravity behaves nothing like an electromagnetic force.


Really?

Let's see here.

Gravitational Force in the orthodox science:

F = g x M x m / r^2
Where
g is the gravitational constant (6.672 x 10^-8 cm^3 g^-1 s^-2)
M is the mass of the first body
m is the mass of the second body and
r is distance between the two centers of mass

The lifting force is given by:

Lorentz Force: Force on an object = Electric Force + Magnetic Force

F= (q x E) + (q x v x B)

Where
q is the charge on the object
B is the magnetic field
V is the velocity of the object and
E is the electric field

How do these forces compare? Well, the EM force is stronger than the gravitational force by a factor of about 2.2 x 10^39.

Plus, gravity isn't a pull, it's a push.

The unified Field Theory is a fail, because it's trying to find out why the force of gravity can be a EM force, which goes completely in the wrong direction since it is a EM force.



gravitation is by definition the bending of spacetime by an object with mass. the equation is
F = G m^1 m^2 / r^2
where F is the force between two masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centers of the masses.


Ok, when I just saw you say, SPACETIME, the immediate reaction was, "Fantasy-head! Fantasy-head! Fantasy-head!" You are not in reality. I was like that, "oh, 4-dimension, 5-dimension, blah, blah, blah." Until I looked, and it turns out, it's just 1. 3-D, no more, no less.

Bending, ok here's the thing, EM forces have little to no influence on other EM forces. So, black hole, is out the window on that one.



electric and magnetic fields can be generated in the lab by moving charges; gravity can't.

they are independent; gravity depends on mass and electromagnetism depends on charge and velocity: you can have a large mass with no charge or a small mass with a large charge.

magnetism only affects certain types of materials; gravity is produced by, and affects, all matter and energy.

gravity only attracts; magnetism/electricity attracts and repels.

gravity follows an inverse square law; magnetism/electricity follow an inverse cube law.

gravity causes gravitational lensing; magnetism/electricity don't.

gravity can't be shielded; magnetism/electricity can.

em fields are vector fields, gravity is a tensor field.

the gravitational field is self-interacting, the em field is not.

gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker then electromagnetism

the gravitational field is described by completely different laws than em fields, both qualitatively and quantitatively...



I can't believe I'm reading this, it's like you regurgitating what you were taught in school, and that idea is a big double-think idea. Instead of finding it yourself, you stick to that idea, and shoot anything down that goes against it.

I found is what others found, Example, Nikola Tesla, an Industrial Superman that was shot down. Read his writings and found them intriguing. Joseph H. Cater, very thought provocative man that had a complete different view of the world and hammered on orthodox science like no tomorrow.




this is nonsense. the picture of the structure of the earth that has been arrived at through the study of seismic waves is the opposite of hollow. the earth's interior is made up of layers of molten rock and various elements, in the mantle and core.



Cover-up, If what you say is true, then we would be off course by a lot.

I'll give you the Oppertunity to look it over, if your man enough.



how the hell would a hollow planet form?


Two forces pushing against each other. But it needs an exhaust else there will be a massive heat build up and no life we be here.



who said we need oxygen to live? seriously? 65% of a human being's mass is oxygen, without it, we don't exist.


Psychic masters don't need it. Who said that we do? Who said that we are not electrical beings? Bio-electrical? No, we're not, just electrical. When you breath, you are generating electricity that repels blood cells, in other words, your heart is a regulator while your lungs are the pump. But, get enough Electron-saturation, you can stop breathing and still live for over a day.



what do you mean Venus would be a blob? define "blob".


If what orthodox scientist would say is true, then that planet wouldn't hold it's structure due to acid rain, which loosens any kind of materiel that isn't impervious to bacterial-corrosion, and a heat that will melt any planet dead.



electrohydrodynamics (EHD), also known as electro-fluid-dynamics (EFD) or electrokinetics, is the study of the dynamics of electrically charged fluids. it has nothing to do with gravitation.

what's this other "kind" of electricity? how many kinds are there? i thought electricity was the flow of electric charge, is that incorrect? is there another kind of electrical charge that behaves unlike all others?


EHD has everything to do with gravity since it's what spaceship of all kinds operate on, emphasis on all kinds that left the Earth.

Another kind, which I'm getting so infuriated right now because I'm talking to an idiot that wants evidence that he refuses to hear or even look for himself less think for himself, is call cold electricity. Unlike Hot electricity, Cold electricity can go anywhere and freeze anyone.
edit on 29-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Ok,, well moving on with earthworks. These 3 links are to Sol 1402 for Spirit. They show earthworks down a slight incline towards the crater base and it does not look as if the rover has been there yet..

left view right camera

centre view left camera

right view right camera.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Bloch wall. Located on the EM spectra and it's that tiny sliver that is what gravity operates on.


this is just blatantly incorrect. a bloch wall is a boundary area between magnetic domains. gravity "operates" on all matter and energy.


Not imaginary. Not even the least of the sense imaginary. Tesla founded such a thing, but more like rediscovered such a thing along with a box that can replace the Four Corner Power Complex indefinitely.
Your actual science cannot figure out how to use gravity as a means of propulsion so that we can eliminate so many useless things, such as gas.


if you are sure it's not imaginary, you must have some amazing proof. i would love to see it.

there is no science that can "use gravity as a means of propulsion". gravitation is inherent in all matter. the only way around it is antigravity.




gravity behaves nothing like an electromagnetic force.


Really?

yes really. there is nothing electromagnetic about the distortion of spacetime by matter.


Plus, gravity isn't a pull, it's a push.

you're a push on my patience with statements like this.


The unified Field Theory is a fail, because it's trying to find out why the force of gravity can be a EM force, which goes completely in the wrong direction since it is a EM force.


i just don't know where to begin here. "Unified Field Theory" is not a fail, it's a theory, and it isn't trying to find out
how gravity can be electromagnetic, it's trying to link all the fundamental forces of nature into one field.


Ok, when I just saw you say, SPACETIME, the immediate reaction was, "Fantasy-head! Fantasy-head! Fantasy-head!" You are not in reality. I was like that, "oh, 4-dimension, 5-dimension, blah, blah, blah." Until I looked, and it turns out, it's just 1. 3-D, no more, no less.


this comment is so hilariously ironic.. i'm the fantasy head? seriously?

in physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.


Bending, ok here's the thing, EM forces have little to no influence on other EM forces. So, black hole, is out the window on that one.


i don't even know what you are trying to say here.


I can't believe I'm reading this, it's like you regurgitating what you were taught in school, and that idea is a big double-think idea. Instead of finding it yourself, you stick to that idea, and shoot anything down that goes against it.


actually it was university, and then at my work.. how are everyday mathematics and physics "doublethink"? how is being scientifically critical "shooting down anything that goes against it"?

all i'm doing is pointing out that you are using scientific terms (that you might have learnt about at school but have obviously forgotten) incorrectly.


I found is what others found, Example, Nikola Tesla, an Industrial Superman that was shot down. Read his writings and found them intriguing. Joseph H. Cater, very thought provocative man that had a complete different view of the world and hammered on orthodox science like no tomorrow.


so? i'm a big tesla fan too, but the dude was a nut. if you can't prove what you're hypothesising then of course mainstream science will not take you seriously.



this is nonsense. the picture of the structure of the earth that has been arrived at through the study of seismic waves is the opposite of hollow. the earth's interior is made up of layers of molten rock and various elements, in the mantle and core.


Cover-up, If what you say is true, then we would be off course by a lot.

care to share some physics to prove this?


I'll give you the Oppertunity to look it over, if your man enough.

thankyou, it was interesting.. you do realise this device was designed with conventional science don't you?


Two forces pushing against each other. But it needs an exhaust else there will be a massive heat build up and no life we be here.

what are these mystery forces? where are they pushing from, and how do they push a hollow planet together?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   


who said we need oxygen to live? seriously? 65% of a human being's mass is oxygen, without it, we don't exist.

Psychic masters don't need it. Who said that we do? Who said that we are not electrical beings? Bio-electrical? No, we're not, just electrical. When you breath, you are generating electricity that repels blood cells, in other words, your heart is a regulator while your lungs are the pump. But, get enough Electron-saturation, you can stop breathing and still live for over a day.


which psychic masters? from where? have they been objectively studied?

we are biological, and slightly electrical, yes, but no human can survive on just electricity. if they could, there'd be evidence.




what do you mean Venus would be a blob? define "blob".

If what orthodox scientist would say is true, then that planet wouldn't hold it's structure due to acid rain, which loosens any kind of materiel that isn't impervious to bacterial-corrosion, and a heat that will melt any planet dead.

are you writing a sci fi novel or something? venus is dead. it's just a big ball of rock with a hot, thick atmosphere. are you suggesting the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere would dissolve the planet? ridiculous.




electrohydrodynamics (EHD), also known as electro-fluid-dynamics (EFD) or electrokinetics, is the study of the dynamics of electrically charged fluids. it has nothing to do with gravitation.

what's this other "kind" of electricity? how many kinds are there? i thought electricity was the flow of electric charge, is that incorrect? is there another kind of electrical charge that behaves unlike all others?


EHD has everything to do with gravity since it's what spaceship of all kinds operate on, emphasis on all kinds that left the Earth.

Another kind, which I'm getting so infuriated right now because I'm talking to an idiot that wants evidence that he refuses to hear or even look for himself less think for himself, is call cold electricity. Unlike Hot electricity, Cold electricity can go anywhere and freeze anyone.


ummm.. ok... cold electricty, i'll look it up. in the mean time, take a chill pill and try to realise that i'm not an idiot, and there is no need to be infuriated.. i just want to see evidence when people make outrageous claims like this..



p.s. to OP: sorry for derailing your thread.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I found an image of Opportunity tracks on Sol 443 when it got stuck in soft sand. As you can see, there is no way that a rover like this can go fast enough to kick up a decent 'boy-racer' amount of dirt without getting bogged down. The scientists at NASA spent a couple of days at least trying to get this rover out of the mess.

I really dont think that the rover making any of these circular marks is a realistic answer.

Have a look at Opportunity tracks stuck in soft soil and also bear in mind the speeds at which these rovers can travel, which is very slow so that they dont get stuck more often than they do.

Some really interesting earth disturbance image which has an orange cast. Not sure why, but from Cornell university so fairly respectable and 'authentic' link.

This image of earth movement is really weird and looks like the rover has gone backwards and forwards over the same spot. Who knows why that might be?
edit on 29 Jul 2013 by qmantoo because: more earth disturbances



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Yes, back to topic.

Mars, we are way off. Sorry, THEY are way off.

Why? Data can be manipulated and give false facts to the public. I mean, if everyone knows how to build an engine that is far more powerful than our modern-day jet engines, we wouldn't be here.

But who gives the false facts? Vested interests, that only care about their pocket money than a million lives.

Tesla had little interest in aeronautics, but still found a engine that was simple yet very powerful.

If he was a nut, only because he was shown as a nut by the winner of history, which could be a psychopath.

If the rover tried to jump, it would feel the same force as it would on Earth. If data straight taken from the rover by a hacker, he/she would find that there IS oxygen on that planet, despite the view of the planet. I mean, ice, at it's caps. If they were CO2 solidified, it should of evaporated by now. But it's still there, so it's something else, I bet it is water.

But I now question; why is that drone in a desert?

and outrageous, is because it goes against what is taught in school, and it's outside the box, may it be or not be pleasant.
edit on 29-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by tachyonmind
 
Yes, back to topic.

Mars, we are way off. Sorry, THEY are way off.

Why? Data can be manipulated and give false facts to the public. I mean, if everyone knows how to build an engine that is far more powerful than our modern-day jet engines, we wouldn't be here.

But who gives the false facts? Vested interests, that only care about their pocket money than a million lives.

Tesla had little interest in aeronautics, but still found a engine that was simple yet very powerful.

If he was a nut, only because he was shown as a nut by the winner of history, which could be a psychopath.

If the rover tried to jump, it would feel the same force as it would on Earth. If data straight taken from the rover by a hacker, he/she would find that there IS oxygen on that planet, despite the view of the planet. I mean, ice, at it's caps. If they were CO2 solidified, it should of evaporated by now. But it's still there, so it's something else, I bet it is water.

But I now question; why is that drone in a desert?

and outrageous, is because it goes against what is taught in school, and it's outside the box, may it be or not be pleasant.


i'm not really interested in whatever misinformation "vested interests" might be spilling, i work in a real lab with real physics that anyone can verify, including electromagnetism.. you can't fake it, science works whether you believe in it or not..

tesla was brilliant, but, as many geniuses are, he was also a nutter.. he suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder, hallucinations and visions, and extreme egotism, it's all in his autobiography.. still he did invent some amazing contraptions and it's a shame that there was a concentrated effort to discredit him, but at the end of the day, he misunderstood relativity and resonance..

if the rover tried to jump, it would only feel 38% of the gravitational pull experienced on earth, since the gravity on mars has been calculated at 3.711 m/s^2.. if a hacker obtained information from the rover, they would find the same information published officially; that the atmosphere contains 0.14% oxygen..

during a martian pole's winter, it lies in continuous darkness, chilling the surface and causing the deposition of 25–30% of the atmosphere into slabs of co2 ice, (dry ice).. when the sunlight returns to the poles, the frozen co2 sublimes, or undergoes a phase transition, creating strong winds that sweep off the poles as fast as 400 km/h. these seasonal actions transport large amounts of dust and water vapor, creating earth-like frost and large cirrus clouds.

the rover is "in the desert" because most of the planet is a desert..

and as for the outrageousness, it's not outrageous because it's outside the box, or because it goes against what is taught in school.. it's outrageous because it's just so obviously unscientific and wrong.. i don't know how else to put it.. there is no math, no chemistry, no physics, no legitimate research anywhere to support these claims, and a simple five minute experiment in the lab can confirm they are incorrect.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


This image of earth movement is really weird and looks like the rover has gone backwards and forwards over the same spot. Who knows why that might be?
It was explained to you here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since that didn't sink in, here it is in more technical terms. I'm sure this will help your understanding.

The Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity investigated the physical properties of Martian regolith in 7 wheel trenches and 20 wheel scuffs distributed along traverses at Gusev crater and Meridiani Planum. Specialized wheel-trenching sequences allowed analysis of wheel motor and suspension telemetry to determine regolith friction angle ϕ and cohesion c at trench sites. Friction angles were 30°–37°, and cohesions were 0–2 kPa.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.nbcnews.com...

No circles?
www.dailymail.co.uk...enis-picture-red-planet.html[editby ]edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
and if you actually read the articles you linked to you would see that it is NOT a boy-racer event like the one I posted but a one wheel event and then take a picture of the result.


Scuffing allows the rover's instruments to make observations of the soil just beneath the surface. It is accomplished by stopping the six-wheeled robot and having it spin one wheel in place.

(3rd paragraph of this)

The 'official' scuffing image which you posted, shows one wheel scuffing. as described in the above article.

In spite of your post of a circular 'scuffing' I do not believe they would drain battery doing more than necessary. When you have a limited amount of power, you do only what is absolutely essential in case you do not have enough for the things you need to complete your objective. I cannot imagine that NASA would do a scuffing and not properly photograph the results. What you linked to was a half-frame image, little better than a thumbnail. Anyway...

The other point is that these earthworks in my recent post are not 'scuffing' as you can clearly see since there are no tracks leading up to or away from them.

Phage, lets leave 'scuffing' behind as I think we all agree it is a valid scientific method used on Mars to analyse various rover characteristics and soil properties, and get on with trying to explain the earthworks which are nothing to do with rover tracks.

to the right of this image you will see earthworks in the centre of the rovers tracks and there is no break in the tracks either.

There is so much evidence that I am not even sure if I have posted this one already. However, if I have not, there is such a lot of earthworks in this image that it is absolutely impossible that the rover is doing scientific scuffing. More like a little boy trying to stamp out an ants nest.
edit on 30 Jul 2013 by qmantoo because: adding impossible scuffing





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join