Comprehensive coverage

The Mars Phoenix spacecraft has landed

At 02:53 applause was seen in the control room in Pasadena, California * In the live broadcast on BBC World, the person in charge at NASA was heard describing the landing step by step

Simulation of the Phoenix spacecraft landing stages
Simulation of the Phoenix spacecraft landing stages

Update at 03:00

At 02:53, the announcer in the NASA control room in Pasadena, California, announced that the signals indicating a smooth touchdown of the Mars Phoenix spacecraft had been received.

The spacecraft landed in the northern region of Mars, which is now at the height of spring. The sun illuminates the place at all hours of the day, which will help supply energy to the lander's instruments. The spacecraft is expected to scan and photograph the landing site as well as dig soil samples through the ice that is said to be in the area.

First images from the landing site are expected to be received within an hour and a half. First, the process of removing the solar collectors will be photographed. Their scientists estimate that the spacecraft will provide a clear answer to the question of whether the planet could have ever served as a home for even the most primitive life.

The last seven minutes of the mission, from the moment of entering the atmosphere until the landing, were the most dangerous, during which the spacecraft operators used a parachute and deceleration rockets to touch the ground at a speed of only 8 km/h.

17 תגובות

  1. Fibonacci:
    As usual, you just attack people without saying anything.
    In your opinion M.B. not talented enough
    In my opinion he is simply sane.
    You defend the Talmud like a religious person and I guess that's why you are like that.
    If the manner of your argument represents what is learned in the Talmud, then you should know that before the argument with you, I thought that studying the Talmud gives more sense and honesty than what you have demonstrated and I thank you for clarifying my mistake.

  2. MB
    Indeed, the website also serves as a place to vent psychological frustrations. Read your first words and argue. And regarding the Talmud which is not suitable for everyone. From your own words it is evident that you have wasted your time. Understanding is not a recitation or practical stories. There is no point in teaching when the learner is not trained to absorb the spirit of things, the subtleties and the spatial integration of the subject. It has already been said, as you know, "as if it teaches trifles." This also applies to learners who are not qualified for this. And this is the main mistake of the ultra-orthodox approach. This attitude was created by "magic" only in Israel. She did not exist in exile in any way. This was made possible only through ultra-Orthodox business and coalition surrender to provide the means. And the results are known.

  3. Michael: Indeed, I agree with your words, and much more so as someone who knows the Talmud first hand, the Talmud is mostly full of idle discussions that are not relevant and not a little expatriate Jewish blasphemy, unfortunately this is the truth (in matters of impurity and purity, demons and spirits, sacrifices, LT works and no shortage of examples) And for the sake of honesty in some of the treatises in the Shas, especially in the matters of appointees, there are individual legal discussions that are worthy of praise,

    And Fibonacci: from your first response to Abi Blizovsky, you gave the impression that you suffer from the urge to "must say something or philosophize", so really why not?! It would be fun to engage you, but why did your later philosophizing with Michael have to be boring demagoguery, lacking talent, interest, and with a bad taste of aggression,

    And in general, after my father's kind reaction above, did you really have to sarcastically compliment???, or rather tease?

    "My compliments, the website also serves as a psychological outlet for various frustrations besides being "scientific".

    man what is wrong with you

  4. Fibonacci:
    For some reason you think that bashing me is a suitable substitute for making factual arguments.
    I am not interested in what is clear to you and what is not in terms of my mathematical understanding or any other subject. I've already mentioned in the past who can be asked about it, but I'm tired of debaters making me the subject of the discussion, so I won't repeat it. If you didn't see it then and if it really interests you - search this site and you will find it.
    I don't know about you, but I just have a tendency not to argue about things I don't think I'm right about. If you drive differently, it's hard for me to understand why, and if you drive like me, then you also think you're right.
    Mathematics is an orderly way of organizing our understanding of the world. It is built from theorems and proofs. The theorems in mathematics are such that can be applied to any model where the basic assumptions are met. Mathematical theorems can - with appropriate mapping of reality - be applied to any problem we are able to solve.
    There is nothing similar in the Talmud. That people who engage in it use logic does not make it count for mathematics in the slightest. Even someone who solves a crossword puzzle or a sudoku problem does not deal with mathematics and does not create any organized knowledge.
    A person who spends his whole life filling in crossword puzzles or solving sudoku problems creates nothing.
    Similarly, those who try to press the logical keys from the words of this or that rabbi regarding this or that specific case do not create anything and the matter is doubly serious when the words of this rabbi and the words of the other rabbi claim to be true when they are not and despite this the practitioner of the Talmud treats them as such.

  5. Michael
    It is difficult to reach a sane and balanced discussion with you since you must always be right. The matter of the logical concepts in the Talmud is indeed discussed, but you have no idea about them. To the same extent that you claim your arguments are not the kind of claim. It is not clear to me how far your mathematical understanding goes. Not how many mathematical exercises and puzzles you managed to solve. Understanding is a product of detailed knowledge and orientation in many fields and the concept of lateral integration. From this a person develops careful distinctions and the ability to observe from different sides. In my opinion, it is important to remember that a debate worthy of its name is intended to learn something, not as a striking tool, what else the horns may break.

  6. A small extension to Fibonacci:
    I suggest you not to jump from the roof of Migdal Shalom even though I have never engaged in jumping from the roof of Migdal Shalom.
    I am also willing to pledge that no mathematical theorem came out of such a leap.

  7. Fibonacci:
    The "blasphemy" was longer and, in addition, it was unfounded.
    I do not intend to appear here for a test in the Talmud and yet I claim that everything I said about him is true.
    If you think something I said is incorrect, feel free to point out the error. If you just want to say that in your opinion I have no green idea in the Talmud, then it is not relevant to the discussion and therefore you are not invited to do so.

  8. Michael
    Sorry you see profanity in the phrase "don't mess with the kettle"
    According to the way you presented your understanding of the Talmud, it is easy to see that you have never dealt with it.
    I believe that even in your opinion partial knowledge in any field is not sufficient to create a meaningful dialogue. Certainly not in subjects whose main essence is a broad integration of many different fields. Partial knowledge of differential equations does not confer the ability to argue meanings in partial differential equations PDE no yes?

  9. Fibonacci:
    1. This is not coercion - it was simply a suggestion. Your response indicates that it is indeed good that you continue to use the nickname you have chosen.
    2. I have a very good idea. Yours probably doesn't have one. Besides swearing, do you have anything to say about my words? Doesn't religious education teach faith? Is it permissible to criticize this belief and ask if there is a God, for example? Are mathematical theorems proven in Talmud classes (since the ultra-Orthodox educational institutions that do not accept the core curriculum are not prepared to teach mathematics at all)? In short - is anything from what I said not true?

  10. Michael
    1. Careful about the end of an exorcism indicates the compulsion of the same animal you are always trying to exorcise at the Habbatim.
    2. Don't talk about the kettle you don't have a green idea in the field.

  11. Fibonacci:
    1. Maybe start adding the missing part in your name? In the current situation it evokes unpleasant associations (fibo- what?)
    2. The problem is with what is learned in yeshiva and not with how. As soon as you learn to believe things instead of using critical thinking, the problems begin. As soon as one wastes the ability to think on an in-depth analysis of Abe's words instead of formulating mathematical sentences, they continue

  12. To my father
    My compliments. The site also serves as a psychological outlet for various frustrations besides being "scientific". For those who repeat the question, and for those who have lost their lives, for divorcees (see the response of the one who found water at the head of the exo-Phoenix on Mars), and for aliens of all kinds.
    In relation to the guy who "wastes his time sitting" you should balance the picture a bit. The problem is not with what you learn but how you learn. Talmud is the main study carried out in yeshiva. As a principle, the various mathematical complexities contained in the Talmud are an unfailing source for sharpening the Jewish mind as we know (or not).
    For those who don't know, the majority of the Talmud is not based on a collection of mitzvot or laws, halachites, etc. Most of it is based on the analysis of logical patterns in end devices. and the possibility of including seemingly unrelated logical structures under a collection of possible relationships.
    Apart from that, the art of logical debate is done there at a level that is hard to overestimate.
    It's on the edge. The way of imparting is something completely different and therefore the result is dismal in many cases. The practice of fitting everyone with the same route makes no sense at all. As there is no point for those who are not qualified to study mathematics at an academic level.

  13. Yes, this is an exciting moment, especially the fact that the lander will probably be able to find out with certainty "if even primitive life existed in the past", and if so, this has a huge meaning in the way of discovering the possibilities of existence and the origin of life, to discover more and more step by step, really fascinating,
    It's a shame that I lost 21 years in an ultra-Orthodox setting and ended up in a purposeful Lithuanian Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, until I discovered that I worshiped idols,
    Oops sorry for the outburst of negative emotions!
    But it's not bad, I have the archive of the wonderful science website (-;
    This is really the site I end the day with, when I visit it regularly every night before I go to bed!!!
    Haha, thank you very much, Avi Blizovsky, for all the articles you take the trouble to present...
    And thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.