Simple division, density differential, Newton's law, and the square equation of fluid resistance, put the lie to this Hollywood rover landing.
When a object is descending in a fluid (gas or liquid) both Newton's law and the fluid drag differential law apply. The thinner the fluid, the more thrust is required to counteract Newton's law of remaining in motion. You would need an exponentially greater amount of thrust to slow a descent in a fluid 100x thinner. Imagine that the ocean is Earth's atmosphere, and a rocket enters the ocean, and is descending toward the bottom to land. Think about how much thrust is required to slow the descent. Now imagine Earth's atmosphere is the atmosphere of Mars. How much more thrust is required to slow the rockets descent, as compared to descent in water.
NASA says that earth's atmosphere is over 100x denser than the atmosphere of Mars. Remember the analogy of the required thrust in water versus required thrust in air, to halt descent. The differential between all three or any two of the three is enormous.
Really, that is all you need to prove that no way, no how did an landing module plummet at those speeds in a thin Martian atmosphere, with a tiny chute, then come to rest with a short rocket burst. Everything in the video is consistent with a descent and landing in Earth atmosphere, not Mars.
Adding to proof of the fraud is the audio clips. There is no human audible sound in atmosphere as thin as Mars. Human ears are designed for vibration in Earth air. The human audible vibrations cannot even cause molecules to pass the vibration in a 100x thinner atmosphere. The audio proves, if anything, that the events were recorded on earth.
Another evidence of fraud is NASA's claim of dust storms and lots of dust in the Mars atmosphere. With atmosphere 100x thinner than Earth's, the space between gas molecules cannot provide the buoyancy or ion concentration to hold and lift up all that dust. There should be virtually no dust in a super thin, Martian atmosphere.
50 years of predictive programming via sci fi movies has caused people to readily believe that screenplay is reality.
If it was so harmless why was the government fining him and declaring his house a dangerous environmental disaster? This is a rhetorical question pointing out the non sequitur nature of your claim on bioaccumulation.
No source will be provided. You can do your own research instead of patronizing me with your assumptions. When I post a link to a source, I get hare brained responses as to why the reader refuses to open the link. If I don't post a link to the source, I get a request for the source. Either way I get gang stalked by NASA fan boiz maliciously flagging my comments. Every comment I have posted has been flagged. I already informed you there are old Galen Windsor videos and you know where to find them.
And I will say it one more time. Perseverance did not land on Mars. It's a cartoon.
Perfect example of Dunning Kreuger! To answer your question you could get a physics textbook. The numbers I provided you are the official numbers. 610 pascals, or 0.088% earth pressure. A stuffed bear with a normal parachute would hit the ground at terminal velocity with only 600 pascals of air buoyancy.
Galen Windsor and his colleagues worked elbow deep in plutonium and uranium for years. None of them ever got sick. There are some old Galen Windsor videos on YouTube. He traveled around the country eating uranium in front of his students and audience. The EPA of his day had hissy fits. Great stuff!
With atmospheric pressure less than 1% of Earth's, there would be virtually no sound. Sound travels as vibrations between air molecules. If you're hearing sound on Mars then you're not on Mars.
With 100x thinner air, the air molecules would not even be close enough to forward such vibrations. You wouldn't be able to hear a gunshot a few feet away.
The fact that NASA would provide any sound at all just demonstrates this is all a staged fakery, being done here on earth with a bit of augmented virtual reality to spice up the film. Since sound doesn't travel in 1% atmosphere the way it does in real earth atmosphere, you should hear virtually nothing.
This whole affair is a Hollywood sci-fi production being sold to you as science. You want so deeply for it to be real that cognitive dissonance and Dunning Kreuger will likely cause you to have a visceral reaction to my remarks. That's OK.
The picture labeled "wind carved rock" is interesting. If the atmospheric pressure is 610 pascals or 0.088 psi (less than 1%) earth pressure, how could any wind be powerful enough to carve a rock? Does the wind blow 600-1200 mph on Mars?
Don't answer as the question is rhetorical.
Air pressure that thin would require winds several hundred MPH just to kick up fine dust particles, well before we get to erosion of rock.
With such low air pressure a human would barely feel a 300 MPH wind gust. In that low air pressure a parachute would be useless unless it is 2000 feet in diameter.
A rocket would need 100x the thrust to get the same acceleration or deceleration, as per Newton's law, 100x less resistance means an object in motion plummeting toward the surface would tend to remain plummeting. Remember why they tell you meteors meet resistance and burn up entering Earth's atmosphere? The reverse would be true of a object plummeting through atmosphere of only 610 pascals. 100x more thrust would be necessary to slow the descent to compensate for the lack of atmosphere and the density differential.
Did NASA think of any of the actual physics before they served you this fake Mars landing cartoon? You're hackers. You know how to do math. This is 8th grade physics to see the scam being served up here as scientific exploration.
I suppose if grifters had a 70 million dollar per week budget they might be tempted to produce what was paid for, even if they had to fake it.
Everything shown to you in these Mars landing videos is consistent with parachuting into Earth's atmosphere, not an atmosphere 100x thinner. That parachute would drop almost as fast as a rocket. Remember the falling feather and cannonball in a vacuum analogy?
You're being played. NASA is just a division of Hollywood. Yes, the world is that messed up. And yes the military industrial complex is that shady.
You resort to ad hominem and assumptit. You are medicalizing dissent. Is that all you got?
I didn't make any arguments or counterarguments. I called bullshit on the Mars landing cartoon. You saw your sacred cow was called into question, then insinuated psychosis because I don't believe in your sacred cow.
All the video that NASA gives you is augmented Virtual reality cartoons.
Oxidation came up because rocket propulsion does not and can not work in a vacuum, because combustion of propellant cannot occur in a real vacuum. That being the case, how did they get a rocket propelled device across millions of miles of interstellar vacuum?
Little league is overrated. It won't be long before Bubba the 50 year old alcoholic identifies as his inner child and joins the team. Remember the scandals with the Boy Skirts of America?
Why does a corporate entity want access to children, anyway?
Yes it is unacceptable. Are you sure you should entrust your child to these people?
If they can misuse the data, THEY WILL. Simple as that.
If you don't want to be abused, then don't take the benefit. Instead there's, boating, fishing, hiking, camping, zoos, amusement parks, and sports at school. wrestling is much better than baseball for building fitness and confidence. Soccer is great, so is track and field. Martial arts are good, too, especially Ju Jitsu.
You have options. Check them out before you sign anything.
AVR = Augmented Virtual Reality. It's like CGI on steroids, crack, and speed at the same time.
People still have the naivete to trust things because they are on a screen. Preconceived notions cause one to mentally miss or gloss over the great artistry and manipulation in AVR cartoons.
The vid is worth the few minutes. It is a half decent scientific experiment that shows how rocket propulsion really works, and it shows an extra factor left out of the Newton's law argument: Ejective oxidation cannot occur without atmospheric containment pressure. Countless experiments have proven this. Buyer beware what they show you on a screen.
The link I posted points to a YouTube video of a vacuum chamber reduced to "Martian" pressure. It should have been obvious that my question was rhetorical, and that I provided the answer. Watch the YouTube video and compare it to the AVR cartoons that NASA is giving for millions of dollars per day.
Right. They are very clever. They are clever enough to have all of you believing this AVR enhanced cartoon was a real Martian landing. If those helicopter blades spin 40x faster than a real chopper at sea level air pressure on earth, the turbulence alone would disintegrate the flywheel and blades and destroy the whole thing. So how did they test it? Let a experiment explain it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cx9mNnky2U
When a object is descending in a fluid (gas or liquid) both Newton's law and the fluid drag differential law apply. The thinner the fluid, the more thrust is required to counteract Newton's law of remaining in motion. You would need an exponentially greater amount of thrust to slow a descent in a fluid 100x thinner. Imagine that the ocean is Earth's atmosphere, and a rocket enters the ocean, and is descending toward the bottom to land. Think about how much thrust is required to slow the descent. Now imagine Earth's atmosphere is the atmosphere of Mars. How much more thrust is required to slow the rockets descent, as compared to descent in water.
NASA says that earth's atmosphere is over 100x denser than the atmosphere of Mars. Remember the analogy of the required thrust in water versus required thrust in air, to halt descent. The differential between all three or any two of the three is enormous.
Really, that is all you need to prove that no way, no how did an landing module plummet at those speeds in a thin Martian atmosphere, with a tiny chute, then come to rest with a short rocket burst. Everything in the video is consistent with a descent and landing in Earth atmosphere, not Mars.
Adding to proof of the fraud is the audio clips. There is no human audible sound in atmosphere as thin as Mars. Human ears are designed for vibration in Earth air. The human audible vibrations cannot even cause molecules to pass the vibration in a 100x thinner atmosphere. The audio proves, if anything, that the events were recorded on earth.
Another evidence of fraud is NASA's claim of dust storms and lots of dust in the Mars atmosphere. With atmosphere 100x thinner than Earth's, the space between gas molecules cannot provide the buoyancy or ion concentration to hold and lift up all that dust. There should be virtually no dust in a super thin, Martian atmosphere.
50 years of predictive programming via sci fi movies has caused people to readily believe that screenplay is reality.
Question authority. It's always lying.