quade 3
Recommended Posts
oldfart 0
QuoteDoesn't it seem logical that if you had a red sky it would cast a reddish tone on all white objects?
Try taking a photograph of an American flag at noon and another at sunset and see what happens.
Right and color balance does change throughout the day here on Earth, as much as 10,000 degrees Kelvin depending on the angle of the sun (below 3000 at sunrise and sunset to over 10,000 at noon also the amount of cloud filtration changes color temp).The debate with this guy was which original 1976 photo was true.The first one ,"uncorrected" blue sky or the "corrected" one red sky.
billvon 2,442
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>NASA and JPL tell us that Mars has 1% Earth's atmospheric
> pressure.I'm sure like Earth,the higher the altitude,the less the
> pressure.
>Having said that I propose this.Is that enough pressure to inflate a parachute?
Yes. I believe sounding rockets on earth have used drouges at lower atmospheric pressures than that and they have inflated.
>NASA has been saying that the Martian atmosphere is almost
>nil,thereby the chances of life ever being there were almost nil.
Where did they say that? Many reports I've seen speculate that Mars was once much warmer and wetter, to the extent that it had seas. Seas indicate free liquid water can exist, which means an atmospheric pressure of at least 1PSI or so.
>A blue sky would indicate a much healthier and heavier atmosphere than NASA is saying.
A blue sky is more indicative of how gases and dust in an atmosphere scatter incoming sunlight, not of how thick it is.
> pressure.I'm sure like Earth,the higher the altitude,the less the
> pressure.
>Having said that I propose this.Is that enough pressure to inflate a parachute?
Yes. I believe sounding rockets on earth have used drouges at lower atmospheric pressures than that and they have inflated.
>NASA has been saying that the Martian atmosphere is almost
>nil,thereby the chances of life ever being there were almost nil.
Where did they say that? Many reports I've seen speculate that Mars was once much warmer and wetter, to the extent that it had seas. Seas indicate free liquid water can exist, which means an atmospheric pressure of at least 1PSI or so.
>A blue sky would indicate a much healthier and heavier atmosphere than NASA is saying.
A blue sky is more indicative of how gases and dust in an atmosphere scatter incoming sunlight, not of how thick it is.
oldfart 0
[>nil,thereby the chances of life ever being there were almost nil.
Where did they say that? Many reports I've seen speculate that Mars was once much warmer and wetter, to the extent that it had seas. Seas indicate free liquid water can exist, which means an atmospheric pressure of at least 1PSI or so.
<< Nil almost by Earth standards.
>A blue sky would indicate a much healthier and heavier atmosphere than NASA is saying.
A blue sky is more indicative of how gases and dust in an atmosphere scatter incoming sunlight, not of how thick it is.
OK.I was looking for the url of this site but it seems to have been moved.I did a search and found several sites claiming similar.What I find interesting about the Martian sites as opposed to the "Moon Landing Hoax"people.Is that the Moon Hoaxers are pretty easy to debunk, especially if you're old enough to remember Project Apollo,like me.Yet these folks aren't making claims that are all that outlandish by comparison and they seem to a bit better read.Here's one of the urls.
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm
Where did they say that? Many reports I've seen speculate that Mars was once much warmer and wetter, to the extent that it had seas. Seas indicate free liquid water can exist, which means an atmospheric pressure of at least 1PSI or so.
<< Nil almost by Earth standards.
>A blue sky would indicate a much healthier and heavier atmosphere than NASA is saying.
A blue sky is more indicative of how gases and dust in an atmosphere scatter incoming sunlight, not of how thick it is.
OK.I was looking for the url of this site but it seems to have been moved.I did a search and found several sites claiming similar.What I find interesting about the Martian sites as opposed to the "Moon Landing Hoax"people.Is that the Moon Hoaxers are pretty easy to debunk, especially if you're old enough to remember Project Apollo,like me.Yet these folks aren't making claims that are all that outlandish by comparison and they seem to a bit better read.Here's one of the urls.
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm
Quote
masher 1
Here's a nice pic showing the rocks and sky of Mars.
--
Arching is overrated - Marlies
Arching is overrated - Marlies
oldfart 0
Yes but where's WalMart?
n2skdvn 0
QuoteYes but where's WalMart?
here
if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site
my site
Try taking a photograph of an American flag at noon and another at sunset and see what happens.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites