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: 2
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Those odds cannot even be calculated into any reliable theory.
Actually they can, given data on cosmic ray flux on the surface of Mars.

Here's a 30 second exposure. It caught a number of strikes.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



Now that I've responded to you, how about you respond to me on how any cosmic ray could make it to the ground of a planet that doesn't have the proper atmosphere to facilitate the breakup of the particles which cause cosmic rays to continue on to the ground.
Not sure of your point. A scant atmosphere allows greater cosmic ray flux at the surface. Since Mars has no magnetosphere, both charged and neutral particles can reach and penetrate the atmosphere.
www.sci-news.com...

Any explanation for just one camera catching this "light?"

edit on 4/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



+9 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   


How about an ice geyser in the background triggered by the passing light? the sun appears to be on the horizon of the photo.

Ice Geysers - BBC NEWS 2006



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by zetnom
 

Besides the problem that it only appears in the right NAVCAM image, those geysers (CO2, actually) occur in the polar regions.


+19 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I have no idea why the left camera didn't catch it. However, that doesn't mean that your theory is correct either does it? Here are a few more observations which counter your theory. I'm not sure how cosmic rays actually act in nature, but I doubt that they can fly through space at the speed of light towards Mars and then decide to fly a couple feet above the ground in order to hit a camera. That's laughable lol.

Furthermore, assuming you're correct, it would seem that the light source from a cosmic ray would appear very close to the foreground rather than a mile away.

I'm not here because I claim to know what the light source is, but I am claiming it isn't some cosmic ray with GPS lol.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by zetnom
 

Besides the problem that it only appears in the right NAVCAM image

Please don't use this argument because of the fact that there is a possibility that the angle of reflection didn't affect left cam.
Since we'll never know what the light actually is, you go with cosmic rays, I'll go with 'imagination'.


+22 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Here are a few more observations which counter your theory. I'm not sure how cosmic rays actually act in nature, but I doubt that they can fly through space at the speed of light towards Mars and then decide to fly a couple feet above the ground in order to hit a camera.
Cosmic rays do not travel at the speed of light. They don't decide to do anything. They hit anything that gets in their way.


That's laughable lol.
I could say that your state of knowledge about cosmic rays is pathetic but that would be rude.


Furthermore, assuming you're correct, it would seem that the light source from a cosmic ray would appear very close to the foreground rather than a mile away.
There is no "light source". The cosmic ray hit the sensor inside the camera. Why do you say it's a mile away? 1.bp.blogspot.com...





I'm not here because I claim to know what the light source is, but I am claiming it isn't some cosmic ray with GPS lol.
No GPS necessary. No lol necessary either.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
In black & white photography dead pixels will appear white. That's what you're seeing here, missing information in the digital photo, not a light source.


+33 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Why link to a picture which has nothing to do with cosmic rays or Mars lol? Your picture proves only that objects can appear larger depending on where the camera is positioned.

While I agree my knowledge is lacking when it comes to cosmic rays, I'm assuming that NASA knows a bit about them and they say "cosmic rays travel at nearly the speed of light"

HERE: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


I'm done with this illogical argument. You believe it's a cosmic ray hitting a mm wide sensor on the only man made vehicle on a planet millions of miles away. The odds claim otherwise and as of yet, I haven't found a similar picture like this of a cosmic ray on Google images.

You continuously muddy the waters of legitimate posts with hair brained theories that can't even be calculated with any mathematical certainty while at the same time, being condescending to people offering theories in which there ARE mathematical possibilities. Noone likes a buzzkill dude, and just because you repeat the same "cosmic ray" mantra over and over, doesn't mean it's any more plausible.

SNIP

edit on 4/6/2014 by Blaine91555 because: Drug reference againt TAC removed.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Looks to me like a dust devil that's capturing the light. I could be wrong but they are well renouned to occur on mars.


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Why link to a picture which has nothing to do with cosmic rays or Mars lol? Your picture proves only that objects can appear larger depending on where the camera is positioned.
Because you claim that the "light" is one half to one mile away. How can you tell?


The odds claim otherwise and as of yet, I haven't found a similar picture like this of a cosmic ray on Google images.
How about the one I showed you earlier:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

How about this one:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Aliens having a camp fire. Its cold on mars.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
ENOUGH!!

Debate, even heated debate is fine, but personal insults are not allowed. Limit the debate to the topic or post removals and possible posting bans may occur.

Blaine91555
Forum Moderator

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by zetnom
 

Besides the problem that it only appears in the right NAVCAM image, those geysers (CO2, actually) occur in the polar regions.


You edited it out, you naughty boy!



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Wow breaking up the little fued going on
,

I`ll go with dead pixels as suggested by freelance_zenachist, seems most rational out of cosmic rays hitting a mm wide sensor or a reflecting rock


Just my two pennarth




posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Perhaps reflection from another iron/nickel meteorite?



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Image comparing cosmic ray captured on earth with DSLR and Mars 'light' source.

After the extra info I think I would have to say cosmic ray over dead pixel due to its shape and size, it would have to be a fair few dead pixels.

It does look quite large compared to other captures I have seen but I suppose it all depends on the angle which it hits the sensor.

Info on capturing cosmic rays with DSLR

People are getting quite consistent images of cosmic rays by doing long exposures here on earth, giving the size of the practical and the size of the sensor. An area the size of your hand here on Earth is said to be hit by a cosmic ray once per second. As Mars does not have an atmosphere to protect it you would have to assume that the hit rate would be far greater.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The cosmic ray theory is by far the most likely. Space, is not a pretty empty place. Charged particles are bombarding all around and our little blue dot sometimes doesn't realise how lucky we are to have a magnetosphere. Mars, is a dead planet comared to earth. It's being hit by cosmic ray's which are on tiny scales here. People are complaining about it hitting a millimeter wide sensor, that millimeter wide sensor is massive compared to the scale of a cosmic ray. It's actually hitting one of millions of pixels and the transfer of energy is overpowering the surrounding pixels. It's why it's only on one camera and not the other.
I'm not sure how any of the other theory's could even come close to fitting taking what evidence we have into account.
edit on 6-4-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zetnom
 


Oh really????

OK... I don`t know nearly enough of this cosmic ray stuff to comment properly on that tbh, but i do know what dead pixels on an image look like and given the rover is on Mars....maybe....there could be a fair few dead pixels on some images.

Just my opinion.




BTW not been sarcastic there,at all, am just saying the image really does look like a light source on mars but I would have thought it is more likely dead pixels otherwise it looks like a glowing being of some sort, (bottom right of your collage), very similar to how the Lady of Fatima must have looked a reckon.

Peace.
edit on 6-4-2014 by fenian8 because: cause origanal post looked sarcastic



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
i'll go with cosmic ray also.

if it was a light, why does it stop at what, 20ft high?
or is there something invisible in the air shining a spotlight down?



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join