It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rover captures light source on Mars!!

page: 12
95
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Phage...come on man...now you're just being juvenile. Are you actually claiming that a cosmic ray can actually be photographed by a camera using less than a ONE MINUTE exposure time?? I hope not, because that is IMPOSSIBLE by JPL's own admission as well as KODAK, NASA, Astonomy.net, and every other site I have visited regarding photographing cosmic rays.

You conveniently skip over information which contradicts your theory and muddy the waters by placing pictures of a Stereo Ahead capture and claim victory lol. The Stereo Ahead cams are set completely different than the Rovers NAV-CAMS and you darned well know it.

The exposure times differ by MINUTES and the bandpass filters on both are completely different. Much like trying to compare a Polaroid pic from the 70's to a 20MP digital pic from now. Apples and oranges.

Again....not only am I saying it's not a cosmic ray...the WHOLE JPL community as well as NASA is claiming it as well on the news. And yet...Phage continues pressing on in the hopes to be noticed. How utterly silly.


EDIT* This is the PDS file directly from JPL Labs which give all the technical information and software information regarding the NAV-CAMS. Anyone familiar with photography can read it and immediately see that there is ZERO possibility that Curiosity's NAV-CAMS can catch a cosmic ray in a picture.

It's a short file and can be viewed without downloading



starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


I hope not, because that is IMPOSSIBLE by JPL's own admission as well as KODAK, NASA, Astonomy.net, and every other site I have visited regarding photographing cosmic rays.
Where is it said it is impossible?



The Stereo Ahead cams are set completely different than the Rovers NAV-CAMS and you darned well know it.
Previoulsy you denined that those were cosmic ray strikes but that image is not from STEREO A. But the point is that even a camera designed for use in space is subject to cosmic ray strikes.



Again....not only am I saying it's not a cosmic ray...the WHOLE JPL community as well as NASA is claiming it as well on the news.
The whole community? Everyone? Who at JPL has said it is not a cosmic ray? Where has NASA said it is not a cosmic ray?

edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Kukri
I see everyone focusing on several pixels of "light" off in thedistance but nobody commenting on the marks on the surface in the foreground. Kinda reminds of " hey what caused that tra... oh look a shiny thing over there"


I kept hoping someone might mention that...

What is causing the "channels" in the foreground that is not wind related.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Haven't read the whole thread, has the sideways cosmic ray/cosmic raygun light source that symptomoftheuniverse pointed out on the anomalies thread been discussesd in the context of this thread? Here's funbox's excellent imaging of that find:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




a diagonal sensor strike ?


edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


To interject (sorry) but the "flash" showing in the other images in the same area of the hill... makes two cosmic ray strikes pretty astonishing... not impossible, but astonishingly unlikely.

I'm curious as to the other image of the "flash"... was it imaged with the same camera or the one on the other side of the rover?

If the same camera, then yeah... defect likelier... if not, then an external source seems to be the answer... to me, anyway.

But if external, then for it not to show in the other image taken at the same time but feet apart, then it would have to be a tightly directional light source, like a reflective mirror... moving in the wind... so a lightweight reflective source... ?

Tinfoil from some lander debris? IF external, then I can only guess at something like that as natural, lightweight reflective surfaces aren't common.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I predict you will be vilified by JPL and Phage will rage quit this site and stalk the skeptics forums instead of wasting more time here



Miniscuzz
reply to post by Phage
 



Phage...come on man...now you're just being juvenile. Are you actually claiming that a cosmic ray can actually be photographed by a camera using less than a ONE MINUTE exposure time?? I hope not, because that is IMPOSSIBLE by JPL's own admission as well as KODAK, NASA, Astonomy.net, and every other site I have visited regarding photographing cosmic rays.

You conveniently skip over information which contradicts your theory and muddy the waters by placing pictures of a Stereo Ahead capture and claim victory lol. The Stereo Ahead cams are set completely different than the Rovers NAV-CAMS and you darned well know it.

The exposure times differ by MINUTES and the bandpass filters on both are completely different. Much like trying to compare a Polaroid pic from the 70's to a 20MP digital pic from now. Apples and oranges.

Again....not only am I saying it's not a cosmic ray...the WHOLE JPL community as well as NASA is claiming it as well on the news. And yet...Phage continues pressing on in the hopes to be noticed. How utterly silly.


EDIT* This is the PDS file directly from JPL Labs which give all the technical information and software information regarding the NAV-CAMS. Anyone familiar with photography can read it and immediately see that there is ZERO possibility that Curiosity's NAV-CAMS can catch a cosmic ray in a picture.

It's a short file and can be viewed without downloading



starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 8-4-2014 by Miniscuzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


What is causing the "channels" in the foreground that is not wind related.
This sort of thing?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Maybe it has something to do with what's under the dust:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I wanted to check exactly where Curiosity was. Fortunately MSL Traverse gives the picture including the co-ordinates.
.

Comparing this with Google Mars, the pictures look as though they are taken from:
- Picture 1 - Co-Ordinates 4 deg, 38 mins 9.55 secs S , 137 deg, 24 mins 11.06 secs E
- Picture 2 - Co-Ordinates 4 deg, 38 mins 15.24 secs S , 137 deg, 24 mins 11.28 secs E

I have highlighted in the box, what I believe is the hill, approx 50 meters away - hence the two photos at either side of this hill.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
If I am correct then the higher hill a little further away is highlighted below approx 160 meters (i.e. twice the distance) - again highlighted with a square (and slightly coloured to help identify):

This would be seen as head on from the first viewpoint and not at all from the second viewpoint.

The mountains are approx 1.7 km away and so this puts the "shiny object" about 1 km away.

I have given co-ordinates for others to verify/correct this.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Phage

Can anyone explain why it does not appear in the image taken by the left NAVCAM at the same time?
Left
edit on 4/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


If you take the left and right and put them side by side then cross your eyes for the Stereo gram 3d effect it still looks like an artificial light in a distance.
pretty weird looking along with the pointy round shadows on the mountains in the top right.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




All quotes are from the JPL website, which I will provide the link for, AGAIN, because you must have missed the first two times I linked it apparently.


"Cosmic rays, even though we call them “rays” (like light rays), are not a form of electromagnetic
radiation; they are a type of particle radiation. Scientists used that name before they knew what
cosmic rays were; some thought that they were high-energy gamma rays. We now know that
cosmic rays are charged subatomic particles traveling almost at the speed of light. Most of them
are protons, but the name still sticks."

Now...if we look at the above quote, and apply it to the PDS file of the NAV-CAMS I presented in my last reply, you'll be able to extrapolate some relevant data. Mainly that the sole purpose of the CCD cams on the Rover is to convert Protons into Electrons in order to produce a detailed image. Since the CCD's have a 99% transfer rate of Protons to Electrons...it's almost impossible to allow for extra Protons to somehow cause this image. Especially in conjunction with ICER and the Bandpass filters.


"Is the energy from cosmic rays much less than, about equal to, or much more than the energy
from starlight?

Answer
The energy from cosmic rays is about the same as the energy from starlight. The reason we
notice starlight more is because our eyes can see the electromagnetic radiation (light) from
the stars. Our eyes, however, don’t detect particle radiation very well. (This question was
adapted from Thinking Physics Is Gedanken Physics, by Lewis Carroll Epstein, San
Francisco: Insight Press, 2005.)"


We get from this quote that normal people cannot see particle radiation well. The NC's on the Rover use the visual light spectrum as well....meaning the odds those cams could catch a cosmic ray are about ZERO. Especially when you add in the fact that the bandpass filters explicitly FILTER particle radiation.


Now...on to shutter/exposure times for capturing cosmic rays:



Optional Activity:

"If dry ice is unavailable, you can construct an alternative cosmic ray detector using a digital
camera able to keep its shutter open more than a minute. Cover the lens so that no light
penetrates the camera. Use the highest ISO (International Standards Organization) setting
available; this makes the film as sensitive as possible to light. Then set the exposure time for
about 5 minutes. You should see small streaks in the resulting image. These are the tracks of
secondary cosmic rays. Digital cameras have noise-reducing programming built into their
computers, so some cosmic ray tracks may be erased."


This should clear it up for you Phage. It explicitly states that the shutter must be open for longer than a minute but closer to five minutes. You also must use the highest ISO setting.


Click on any news link regarding this find, and all of the scientists claim it ISN'T a cosmic ray, but perhaps light entering the shielding.

Thanks for playing



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Baddogma
 


I'm curious as to the other image of the "flash"... was it imaged with the same camera or the one on the other side of the rover?
The cameras are about 18 inches apart.


But if external, then for it not to show in the other image taken at the same time but feet apart, then it would have to be a tightly directional light source, like a reflective mirror
Depending on the distance, a very tight light source. A reflection of the Sun from a small mirror (a heliograph) at a distance of half a mile is 25 feet wide.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Miniscuzz

This should clear it up for you Phage. It explicitly states that the shutter must be open for longer than a minute but closer to five minutes. You also must use the highest ISO setting.


Which planet are those suggestions for?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

symptomoftheuniverse
This image is from sol 419,its a different camera ,rear hazcam mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


And heres one from the other cam at the same time mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
It appears we have fuzzy wuzzies flying round mars.

edit on 8-4-2014 by symptomoftheuniverse because: (no reason given)
i suggest you look at these images miniscuzz.
Millions of lights on mars,



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

freelance_zenarchist

Miniscuzz

This should clear it up for you Phage. It explicitly states that the shutter must be open for longer than a minute but closer to five minutes. You also must use the highest ISO setting.


Which planet are those suggestions for?



It doesn't matter what planet the settings are for. The only thing that actually matters is if a camera that uses a visual light spectrum (like the Rovers NC's) is even capable of taking a picture of a cosmic ray...which it is NOT. Particle light and visual light are completely separate things. Those cameras, along with the noise reducing ICER program, coupled with the THREE PARTICLE BANDPASS FILTERS, mean that it is indeed impossible to capture cosmic rays using the NAV-CAMS that operate in ONLY the visual light spectrum.

Sheesh....how hard is this to understand lol?????


Your question is tantamount to claiming that your cellphone can capture heat images using only the visual spectrum of light. A fantastical claim.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Mainly that the sole purpose of the CCD cams on the Rover is to convert Protons into Electrons in order to produce a detailed image.
No. The primary purpose is to convert photons into electrons.


The NC's on the Rover use the visual light spectrum as well....meaning the odds those cams could catch a cosmic ray are about ZERO.
The LASCO cameras use visible light. The human retina does not function in the same manner as a CCD.


This should clear it up for you Phage. It explicitly states that the shutter must be open for longer than a minute but closer to five minutes. You also must use the highest ISO setting.

"Streaks", "Tracks". Plural.
The point of this experiment is to demonstrate that we are being hit by cosmic rays continually. The longer the shutter is open the more strikes will be recorded because in a given period of time there will be a given number of strikes. I higher ISO setting will enable lower energy strikes to show up but higher energy strikes will show up even at low settings.



Click on any news link regarding this find, and all of the scientists claim it ISN'T a cosmic ray, but perhaps light entering the shielding.
I haven't seen any scientists say it isn't a cosmic ray strike. Can you point me in the right direction? All I can find is Justin Maki saying they think it's a glint off of a rock or a light leak. Nothing saying it can't be a cosmic ray strike. I've said that the light leak idea is interesting, it would account for the flash appearing in only one of the cameras.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for that information... I did not know that the reflection was so wide... even with a piece of equipment designed for reflecting light.

And so that leaves us... where? A statistically unlikely couple of events where two high energy particle hit different cameras (or the same one) so that the artifact appears to be external and at the same area of the hill?

I'm kinda stumped here...

ETA and the light leak brings us to it appearing in different areas of the cameras' viewpoint which happens to correspond to the same area of the same hill?

Laser pointer it IS... heh...


edit on 4/8/2014 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 



There are tons of problems with the provided pictures. First...none of those "lights" look like cosmic rays at all. In fact, none of them are even close to the picture provided in the first posting.

Secondly, those pictures are taken using a completely different set of cameras on the Rover which are meant for taking pictures of completely different things. The HAZCams have different settings, exposure times, bandpass filters, and aren't hooked up to the ICER program in the onboard computer.


Much like Phage...you cannot just take pictures from other cameras that have different uses and apply them in this thread. It make zero sense to do so.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Skip to 11:06 and the answer of what this is becomes EXTREMELY obvious...

Droid scavengers...Just want a new Rover is all! This one has a bad motivator is all!
edit on 8-4-2014 by abeverage because: of bad motivator



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 





There are tons of problems with the provided pictures. First...none of those "lights" look like cosmic rays at all. In fact, none of them are even close to the picture provided in the first posting.


Who says all cosmic ray strikes are the same?

So what exactly is a cosmic ray supposed to look like in your mind?



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join