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.

 

NASA Dawn, What will it discover about Ceres?

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Where does it say that the Hubble saw the bright spot being at 85 miles in diameter?

The Hubble images of Ceres are very low resolution, so a small but very bright source on Ceres would appear smudged over a larger area of the image.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The figure of 85 miles is a conservative estimate of the apparent size of the bright spot, in the Hubble Space Telescope images. It is based on the space the bright spot appears to occupy on the disk of Ceres.
In any case, certain errors were inadvertently introduced, by me, in comparing the Hubble images to those from Dawn.

Using the difference in reflective brightness between Ceres as a whole, and the bright spot, and multiplying this by the the apparent reduction in its area, I get a reflective efficiency (albedo) of about 60 percent for the larger of the two spots and 30 percent for the smaller.
These figures are quite tentative. The bright spots are still optically unresolved. They appear smeared out, and so, dimmer and larger than they will presumably be found to be, eventually. No one can predict, at this point, how much smaller and brighter they will appear when better images become available.
Even at 60 percent albedo, the brighter of the two spots is too bright for the sort of ice we might expect to find on Ceres.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54You are considering the "Light" to be "Reflective". Certainly this would be logical, but there are also other possibilities. And those must be given as much time to consider as well.

Reflective light can take many shapes, but mostly, when viewing the item close up, will show its true shape. Unlike a light source.

The beam of a headlight will actually look much larger depending on distance. When viewed straight on from in front looks larger than it really is. But close up, from the side, you can see the bulb is actually very very small.


The figure of 85 miles is a conservative estimate of the apparent size of the bright spot, in the Hubble Space Telescope images.
85 miles down to 8 miles? Of course, now that we are closer we can see that it isn't 85 miles wide, but only 8. This does not sound like an albedo, it sounds like a headlight.

The only major question is, can there be a naturally occurring light source emanating from within a "Heavenly Body"? Let me put this in Laymen s terms for a few minutes.

As we, humanity, are no experts when it comes to the reality of our universe, no one can say for certain what is, or what is not possible, until there are boots on the ground, sort of speaking. No one has ever ventured to the center of our very own planet to testify it is a molten ball of iron, or what ever, its a theory. That's it, that's all we have, unsubstantiated theory.

Using sciences own theory that planets have molten cores, if there were a hole caused by a meteor strike would the light of that intense light not escape to the surface, if the crust was very thin??? So using the present day "Science", it is very possible for a natural explanation to the source of this light. Has anyone done a spectral analysis on the light? Should be very interesting.

For myself, I m thinking that the light is actually something electrical in nature. Maybe its where God stores all his LED,s , or a spot high in electrical conductivity.

Again, anything is possible until there are boots on the ground



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

Why would it be something unique? There are a lot more "rocks, planets, moons" to visit not mentioning the period of observation on a galactic scale.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ross 54

Without knowing what material it really is, we have no index to apply a true measure of albedo. Who knows.. some phosphorescent gas, some exotic material we have never seen. They have yet to come up with a solid candidate.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Ross 54

Without knowing what material it really is, we have no index to apply a true measure of albedo. Who knows.. some phosphorescent gas, some exotic material we have never seen. They have yet to come up with a solid candidate.


As I mentioned in another thread, if it is a bright patch of some material, they would need to know the albedo before making educated guesses at to the materiel, and they can't know the albedo until the determine the actual size of the patch.

It seems that while some scientists are saying the bright spots could be ice, some are saying it could be mineral salts that have a white color. Depending on the albedo (which they can't determine until the get a true size of the bright spots), it seems it could be ice (which can have an extremely high albedo) or salts, which are still reflective, but not as much as ice in general.

Here is Dawn mission scientist Chris Russell's take on it:

In this case, the feature is very reflective. There isn't something there signaling us actively. It's signaling us passively; it's reflecting the sunlight. It's consistent with reflecting all of the light if the spot is small enough. Now, we don't know what size it is, so we can't tell if the albedo is 40 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent or 100 percent, but it's probably in that range someplace. One thing that's very good in the solar system at reflecting sunlight is ice. For example, [Saturn's moon] Enceladus has an albedo of about 100 percent.

But there are people who are holding out for salt — not necessarily table salt, but salts of various minerals that may be white in appearance. So we have sort of a dichotomy of opinion in the team as to whether this has a dry or wet explanation. But we'll get to the bottom of this when we can resolve the bottom of the feature.

Source:
Studying Dwarf Planet Ceres: Q&A with Dawn Scientist Chris Russell




edit on 3/12/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Have we been shown close-ups of the anamolies, now that the craft arrived at Ceres? Seems to have gone quiet.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Have we been shown close-ups of the anamolies, now that the craft arrived at Ceres? Seems to have gone quiet.


Dawn's orbital insertion at Ceres was on its dark side. Dawn's orbit is now slowly bringing it around to the sunlit side, but that will take a little while. It will begin taking full images in April.

Due to several factors (on of which was the failure a couple of years ago of Dawn's reaction wheels, which was used to turn the spacecraft -- a job which is now being done by attitude control thrusters, which wastes fuel, so turning the craft is kept to a minimum), Dawn was sent on a trajectory that first took it past Ceres -- but a trajectory that would eventually cause Dawn to be captured by Ceres' gravity.

So now Dawn is in the process of using Ceres' gravity to insert itself into the proper orbit, but these things take time, especially considering the very low thrust of Dawn's ion engines, and the limited fuel reserves of the attitude control thrusters, and the failure of the reaction wheels. It should be pointed out that even when Dawn is in its proper orbit, there will be times that the orbit will take it to the dark side of the dwarf planet again.


edit on 3/13/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It should be pointed out that even when Dawn is in its proper orbit, there will be times that the orbit will take it to the dark side of the dwarf planet again.
That is exactly the side some of us would like to see




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It should be pointed out that even when Dawn is in its proper orbit, there will be times that the orbit will take it to the dark side of the dwarf planet again.
That is exactly the side some of us would like to see



Ceres rotates, so we will eventually see all of it on the sunlit side.

However, I bet there will be images of the dark side with the dwarf planet being back-lit by the sun. Mission planners may want to to something such as use the sunlight to shine through Ceres' thin atmosphere so they can analyze the spectrum of the atmosphere, or do something similar with back-lighting the plumes of material and/or gasses that are thought to emanate from Ceres.


edit on 3/13/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It should be pointed out that even when Dawn is in its proper orbit, there will be times that the orbit will take it to the dark side of the dwarf planet again.
That is exactly the side some of us would like to see



Ceres rotates, so we will eventually see all of it on the sunlit side.

However, I bet there will be images of the dark side with the dwarf planet being back-lit by the sun. Mission planners may want to to something such as use the sunlight to shine through Ceres' thin atmosphere so they can analyze the spectrum of the atmosphere, or do something similar with back-lighting the plumes of material and/or gasses that are thought to emanate from Ceres.



In my opinion, the dark side of this "Dwarf Planet", is going to make, or break, planet formation theories.

Before the arrival of the Scientific format for discovering truths about our plane of existence, we were taught that "God" created everything from nothing. Mankind believed this for more of its history than not. It is at the basis of religion. But of course, as mankind matured he began to question this religious belief, as is his given choice.

Now, we are collectively looking at a relic of creation. But what is it we are actually looking at??? An asteroid, a dwarf planet, or might it be, something entirely different. We see a light!


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Genesis 1

I'm not one to thump the Bible, but just to point it out, light played a important part in the beginning. Who knows what "God" said this, or to whom it was said, and really immaterial at this point. What we must deal with is staring us in the face. Ceres!

Albert Einstein was quite a quagmire to the religious community about his personal views of a "God". He submitted to a power and or force that brought all things, to light, but rejected religion. Can a person believe in a supreme being, a power or force that could "Create" the universe, and not believe in Religion??? Not only Einstein, but through my own abilities, me too

Einstein on God


Now you have two competing theories, one that requires a Divine force to create planets, and one where random materials from deep space come together to form planets and Suns, Stars, that require no God, no Divine Creative plan.

Let the evidence speak for itself.

All manner of speculation concerning these "Lights" and their origin are now spoken about. Albedo s of ice, volcanoes of oxygen and gasses, etc, etc. But what of the other possibility?? What if it isn't a reflection, but a source, of light. Seeing the dark side photos will reveal the true nature of the light, reflective, or self generating.

Are our well trained scientists ready for the alternative? An alternative theory that what we are looking at is in actuality, the core of a missing planet, covered by millions of years worth of dust?? Might we be seeing the "Light" of Creation shining out of a opening caused by a meteor???

I must admit I am bias towards the "Creation" theory because I have seen this "Light" twice before. And, once you have seen this light, you can never go back, to the box.

Good luck to you, Mr and Mrs Scientist, your going to need it.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Now, we are collectively looking at a relic of creation. But what is it we are actually looking at??? An asteroid, a dwarf planet, or might it be, something entirely different. We see a light!


Well, we see a bright patch, not necessarily a light. We don't "know" if it is reflective or self-illuminating -- but if it is self-illuminating, then I assure you that would be jaw-dropping information. However, there is no reason to believe it is NOT just something that is relatively highly reflective.

As for the term "dwarf planet" or "asteroid", they are just different words for the general "lumps of stuff floating around in the solar system". Don't get too caught up in words.


edit on 3/13/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19112784]Soylent Green Is but if it is self-illuminating, then I assure you that would be jaw-dropping information.

And even if it is self-illuminating (which I very much doubt), it doesn't necessarily imply that it would be artificial in nature - a simple phosphorescent substance could be the candidate.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: [post=19112784]Soylent Green Is but if it is self-illuminating, then I assure you that would be jaw-dropping information.

And even if it is self-illuminating (which I very much doubt), it doesn't necessarily imply that it would be artificial in nature - a simple phosphorescent substance could be the candidate.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I agree with part of your statement, it isn't artificial in nature.


You disagree with part of my statement... You mean, you believe it is self-illuminating?


edit on 13-3-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I agree with part of your statement, it isn't artificial in nature.


You disagree with part of my statement... You mean, you believe it is self-illuminating?



Simple answer, Yes. I am in favor of the "other" theory of planet formation. That being instead of a iron core at the center of planets there is a photon plasma phenomenon, for lack of better words. It is this ball of light that actually rides the orbit around the Sun. The crust of a planet covers this "Ball of White Light". Though most recognize this phenomenon as a orange to mild red in color, but this may be due to lighter amounts of dust on its surface.

Hubble gave us some amazing photos of deep space. One of them in particular I found to be, quite, no, devastatingly interesting.



This object, what ever science wants to call it, is self illuminating, so science cant say they haven't seen this phenomenon before.

What it "may" be is a core of a planet that is partially covered by derbies of millions of years, but not completely covered, yet. And yes, there are other possibilities as well.

Rather than a chemical reaction, I believe it to be electrical in "Nature".



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
It is this ball of light that actually rides the orbit around the Sun. The crust of a planet covers this "Ball of White Light".

Planets and asteroids orbit the Sun because they have mass. If they were massless, they would fly right out the Solar System because of their mere speed. Since light has no mass, planets with cores made of light would fly out from our solar system.


Hubble gave us some amazing photos of deep space. One of them in particular I found to be, quite, no, devastatingly interesting.



This object, what ever science wants to call it, is self illuminating

Actually this "mystery" object is Io, a moon of Jupiter. So, it is not really a deep space object. The picture you have here is its ultraviolet image, meaning Io is simply reflecting UV light.

From an article in Spacetelescope.com:


NASA Hubble Space Telescope High Resolution Uv Image of Jupiter's Satellite Io




This is a Hubble Space Telescope image of the geologically active trailing hemisphere of the Jovian moon lo. Theultraviolet light image as taken with the European Space Agency's Faint Object Camera on March 15, 1992 (...) Regions which lookbright in visible light are dark in UV. The most likely explanation is that large areas of lo are covered with a sulfurdioxide frost. Because sulfur dioxide is a strong absorber of UV radiation, sulfur dioxide-rich areas are dark in the UVthough they are bright in visible light.





edit on 13-3-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Planets and asteroids orbit the Sun because they have mass. If the would not have mass they would fly out the Solar System because of their mere speed. Since light has no mass, planets made of light would fly out from our solar system.


Maybe, if that was the reason for maintaining their orbits. I suspect is more in line with a electromechanical relationship rather than mass. If it were purely mass that was to be considered, then eventually ALL bodies would spiral into the Suns gravity. And this is not what we see. Besides, in deep space without gravity, mass, just like the centrifugal effect on earth would in fact throw things out into space. And again, this is not what we see.

We see planets holding their spacing from each other, and the sun, cycle after cycle after cycle. There is a missing dynamic involved and it appears science can not identify it, when it comes to solar systems. When the larger planets are further away from the sun, your logic of mass becomes irrelevant. If it were mass, the larger planets with more mass should be the closest ones to the Sun. And what do we see closest to the Sun? The smallest.


Actually this "mystery" object is Io, a moon of Jupiter. So, it is not really a deep space object. The picture you have here is its ultraviolet image, meaning Io is simply reflecting UV light.

Thank you for the correction. When I copied the photo there was no explanation as to what it was. It came with a large amount of other odd pictures from Hubble.

But, it does "Reflect" the ideology I am trying to share. The image of this moon is precisely what I would expect to see of a "Core" of a planet.

Again, thank you

Other photos from Hubble Look almost as I would imagine a planet coming apart.

www.iflscience.com...< br />
cdn.inquisitr.com...


i4.minus.com...

www.spacetelescope.org...

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

static.cinemagia.ro...

In all the previous photos you have one thing in common, a white light at the center of the mass. It seems to be a reoccurring theme in nature.

And then you have this photo, again from Hubble, at least it is stated so. No back story I could find.



And again, a white light at its center.

So there is a basis for the Alternative theory, if you choose to accept it.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
Don't know if you ever heard of this alternative theory of planet formation.
I thought maybe you might find this interesting.




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I agree with part of your statement, it isn't artificial in nature.


You disagree with part of my statement... You mean, you believe it is self-illuminating?



Simple answer, Yes. I am in favor of the "other" theory of planet formation. That being instead of a iron core at the center of planets there is a photon plasma phenomenon, for lack of better words. It is this ball of light that actually rides the orbit around the Sun. The crust of a planet covers this "Ball of White Light". Though most recognize this phenomenon as a orange to mild red in color, but this may be due to lighter amounts of dust on its surface.

Hubble gave us some amazing photos of deep space. One of them in particular I found to be, quite, no, devastatingly interesting.



Do you even know what that is? It's not some mysterious object in the far reaches of the universe.


This object, what ever science wants to call it, is self illuminating, so science cant say they haven't seen this phenomenon before.


What science calls that object is Jupiter's volcanic moon IO seen in near UltraViolet (UV) spectrum as photographed by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.

I will agree that it is very interesting but from a comparative planetology and geologic point of view.



What it "may" be is a core of a planet that is partially covered by derbies of millions of years, but not completely covered, yet. And yes, there are other possibilities as well.

Rather than a chemical reaction, I believe it to be electrical in "Nature".


Your "theories" are wacked out and have no scientific basis. It's a UV image of IO not some planet core.
edit on 13-3-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join