[syhprum]

I think the moon landing deniers must be having a field day when they see how cunningly live and simulated videos are contrived today.
I am not a denier of course I have no doubt that the moon landings were genuine

[Petrochemicals]

The heat shield is curved, the sun is shining onto the heat shield from beneath. The shadow and glare are in the right place. If the glare was beneath and the shadow above then I would say impossible when looking into the concave shape. If it was convex the scenario you have outlined would be impossible.

If it was flat parallel surface you would not see any glare at all due to reflection, so to call this suspicious is not creditable. The angle of the sun versus the slope of the heat shield do not appear equal, the distance and angle from the sun to the heat shield versus the distance and angle from the camera to the heat shield are not equal, yet you expect the point of observation to be equal. If everything that light hit gave glare like it was a flat perpendicular surface life would be fairly difficult.

[evan_au]

The first few seconds (which I am talking about), the heat shield falls straight and without significant wobblings.

From the image you posted from the vehicle assembly room, the heat shield is a fairly shallow dish. It doesn't take much of a wobble to change the angle of reflection significantly.

(third) image shows how sun reflection spot looks like on Earth's surface

The images of Earth show the Sun reflecting off areas of ocean. While not a mirror-smooth surface, the ocean does have a component of specular reflection (like a mirror).

There is no liquid surface water on Mars, so the surface is dominated by a dusty, rocky surface, which leads to a more diffuse reflection.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
 

But in that case, the shadow on the animation below should move in the diametrically opposite direction.

[Kryptid]

Please answer my quesiton:

No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.

[Bored chemist]

Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
 

It is interesting that you seek to illustrate that something must be a sphere by showing a picture that looks like a sphere, but is, of course, on a flat screen.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for an answer to this

Exactly. Factual data analysis only.

No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Please answer my quesiton:

Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 17:22:02
No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.

I want to understand the nature of the bright spot on the surface of Mars in the video of the Perseverance landing. And I am not accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.

[Kryptid]

Okay, good.

[yor_on]

Distrust, lifted up to a truth, isn't it :)
and the moon landing

And coca cola. I mean, who knows what that recipe contains?

Alexandr Kushnirtshuk :)

you have to accept that some things are done exactly as described, while other things are questionable. Not exactly NASA as they try to be pretty much 'unpolitical' although steered by politics. If you were talking about the NSA it would be another matter.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Sun reflection on Earth from 400 km. and Mars from 10 km. I have nothing to add to this thread.

ISS animation source: Over Earth - Incredible Space Views from ESA Astronaut Alexander Gerst

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Artist’s impression of Mars four billion years ago


Size of Jezero Crater on Mars, and size of Sun reflection inside that crater, which makes up less than 10% of Jezero Crater area.



Same bright spot size on Curiosity landing video.
Complete Mars Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced HD 1080p Landing + Heat Shield impact

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Asked this question on NASA forum: Lighting questions on the Perseverance landing video.

[Kryptid]

Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.

So what are you arguing then? That Mars is much smaller than NASA says it is?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.

So what are you arguing then? That Mars is much smaller than NASA says it is?

According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.
Moon: 500-700 km. Sun: 2500-3000 km. Earth and Sun rotating around common center of mass approximately like on animation below. Mercury and Venus are direct satellites of the Sun, to what at least 3 following facts indirectly indicate:
 - Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
 - Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 9, 10 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 17, 16 hours).
 - In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.






This is only my personal hypothetical assumptions. You asked me, and I just honestly answered to your question.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Opposition Effect (Seeliger effect) | Aerial video examples

[Bored chemist]

According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.

According to measurements (and thus, to reality) the diameter is 6,779 km.
So, well done, you had a testable hypothesis. (That's a lot better than some people manage)
It has been tested.
It is not true.

You can forget about it now and do something else.

[Kryptid]

According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.

Are you serious? How do you expect Mars to have 0.38 times the gravity of Earth and hold onto an atmosphere at such an incredibly tiny size? Besides, Bored Chemist has already pointed out that it's been measured to have a much larger diameter than that.

This belongs in New Theories. Time to move it.

[Bored chemist]

This belongs in New Theories. Time to move it.

I disagree.
I think it belongs in "that can't be true".
(Well, really, it belongs in the trash can...)

[Kryptid]

I disagree.
I think it belongs in "that can't be true".
(Well, really, it belongs in the trash can...)

I suppose that's true. If another moderator thinks it needs to be moved yet again, they can handle it.

After using a couple of online calculators, I calculated what Mar's density would need to be in order for it to have a surface gravity of 0.38 G and a diameter of 20 kilometers: https://planetcalc.com/1758/ and https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/KurtHeckman/Sphere+-+Density

The result is that it would need to have a density of about 1,337 grams per cubic centimeter, which is 59 times more dense than osmium. It's completely infeasible.

[evan_au]

According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.

Have you ever looked at Mars through a telescope?
- I have an 8-inch reflector, and at <20km, Mars would be quite invisible
- Phobos is 22km across, and I can't see that in my telescope (unlike 4 moons of Jupiter, which are quite visible)