Regarding Those Bright Spots on Ceres. . . WE WERE WRONG!

originally posted by: Cauliflower

NASA has all the esoteric keys and I doubt they are puzzled about the reflections.

"Reflections"? You beg the question. Not scientific. NASA is puzzled because there is evidence the bright areas are NOT reflections.

Water vapor signature was pretty weak.
Even Dry lake beds on Earth reflect shiny due to the fine nature of the salt deposition.

But the brightness did not change with the inclination of the sun/rotation of Ceres. Are you advocating that the laws of optics are violated on Ceres? LOL!

Fine dust would settle last in a thin water vapor atmosphere.

So all the atmosphere is congregating over the two brightly lit areas to concentrate the amount of light scattered by your hypothetical dust? Your explanation is ridiculous.

originally posted by: abeverage

originally posted by: olaru12
I still think it's illumination and not reflection. Vulcanism would explain the difference in temperatures.

Sorry, I just don't trust NASA !

Really? Why? As Ceres rotated the object became brighter until it neared its terminus and then grew dark or dimmer which is pretty indicative of a reflection of our sun...

The light didn't look that way to me. It seemed constant through out the rotation. This will be settled when the probe goes to the dark side of Ceres. If there is light on the darkside, I doubt if NASA will tell us. I don't trust NASA!! I don't pay taxes to buy lies. Not that I have any control over that....

a reply to: jaffo

Why doesn't the light seems to brighten or fade as the moon rotates? It's rotating into darkness, so we know it's not just the orbiter's movement. Shouldn't the light fluctuate as it moves towards and away from the light source if it's being reflected? My money says that some alien parked their mother ship and left the lights on.

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: jaffo

Why doesn't the light seems to brighten or fade as the moon rotates? It's rotating into darkness, so we know it's not just the orbiter's movement. Shouldn't the light fluctuate as it moves towards and away from the light source if it's being reflected? My money says that some alien parked their mother ship and left the lights on.

They're going to be so mad when they leave Friday's and find out they killed the battery.

It's obvious that the lights are plasma discharges excavating the crater. The primary discharge is smack in the middle of a large crater gouging out a smaller "bullseye" crater in the center. That's how bullseye craters are formed. This idea that separate impact events create bullseye craters is absurd.

The same is true for the "volcanoes" on Io. Those are not volcanoes. They are plasma discharges doing the same thing we see on Ceres. And the same goes for comets. Electrical discharges create the intense x-rays, filamented tails and massive comas we see coming from comets. All of these processes are electrical.

a reply to: 0bserver1

Maybe a big spacecraft dropped a bunch of chaffs after being intercepted...

That's the beauty of the Universe...literally anything is possible

a reply to: abeverage

I would love it were something utterly unknown!

Ditto! And if we could get our hands on it that'd be boss too

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
It's obvious that the lights are plasma discharges excavating the crater. The primary discharge is smack in the middle of a large crater gouging out a smaller "bullseye" crater in the center. That's how bullseye craters are formed. This idea that separate impact events create bullseye craters is absurd.

The same is true for the "volcanoes" on Io. Those are not volcanoes. They are plasma discharges doing the same thing we see on Ceres. And the same goes for comets. Electrical discharges create the intense x-rays, filamented tails and massive comas we see coming from comets. All of these processes are electrical.

Here we go again *yawn*... It's funny how you people pay attention only to pretty pictures but ignore the other (probably 90% +) of data from the multitude of instruments on spacecraft that bury your 'theories' under the dust where they will never be seen again.
I don't think I've noticed any of you ever talk about the results from anything apart from what things 'look like' in images. Much like most conspiracy theories actually, you hear all the time "looks like" and that's as far as analysis goes.

Let's take Rosetta for example, why is it that EU proponents make up cute little stories about what they see in NAVCAM images, but choose to ignore:

INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION
RPC consists of five sensors:
Ion Composition Analyser (ICA)
Ion and Electron Sensor (IES)
Langmuir Probe (LAP)
Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG)
Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP),

as well as a joint


Plasma Interface Unit (PIU)

acting as instrument control, spacecraft interface, and power management unit.

ION COMPOSITION ANALYSER
The Ion Composition Analyser (ICA) measures the three-dimensional velocity distribution and mass distribution of positive ions. The mass resolution is sufficient to differentiate between the major particle species such as protons, helium, oxygen, molecular ions, and heavy ion clusters (dusty plasma). The ICA comprises an electrostatic arrival angle filter, a hemispherical electrostatic analyser employed as an energy filter, and a magnetic deflection momentum filter. Particles are detected using a large micro channel plate and a two-dimensional anode array.

ION AND ELECTRON SENSOR
The Ion and Electron Sensor (IES) will simultaneously measure the flux of electrons and ions in the plasma surrounding the comet over an energy range from around one electron volt, which approaches the limits of detectability, up to 22 keV. IES consists of two electrostatic analysers, one for electrons and one for ions, which share a common entrance aperture. The charged particle optics for IES employs a toroidal top-hat geometry along with electrostatic angle deflectors to achieve an electrostatically scanned field of view of 90 × 360 degrees.

LANGMUIR PROBE
The Langmuir Probe (LAP) instrument will measure the density, temperature and flow velocity of the cometary plasma. It comprises two spherical sensors mounted at the tip of deployable booms, with the sensors capable of being swept in potential to measure the current-voltage characteristic of the intervening plasma, which provides information on the electron number density and temperature. The probes can be held at a fixed bias potential to measure plasma density fluctuations and by a time-of-flight analysis of the signals from the two probes the plasma flow velocity can be determined.

FLUXGATE MAGNETOMETER
The Magnetometer experiment (MAG) will measure the magnetic field in the region where the solar wind plasma interacts with the comet. It consists of two triaxial fluxgate magnetometer sensors mounted on a 1.5 metre deployable boom that points away from the comet nucleus. One sensor is mounted near the outboard tip of the boom and one is mounted part way along the boom. The use of two sensors allows the effects of the spacecraft's own magnetic field to be minimised.
MAG will also study any magnetic field possessed by the comet nucleus, in cooperation with the ROMAP magnetometer experiment on the Rosetta lander.

MUTUAL IMPEDANCE PROBE
The Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP) will derive the electron gas density, temperature, and drift velocity in the inner coma of the comet by measuring the frequency response of the coupling impedance between two dipoles.
MIP will also investigate the spectral distribution of natural waves in the 7 kHz to 3.5 MHz frequency range and monitor the dust and gas activity of the nucleus.

PLASMA INTERFACE UNIT
The Plasma Interface Unit (PIU) acts as an interface between the five instruments that make up RPC and the Rosetta spacecraft by providing a single path for the transmission of scientific and housekeeping data to the ground and for the receipt and processing of commands sent from the ground. The PIU also takes power from the spacecraft and converts, conditions and manages it for the RPC instruments.
PIU also performs on-board data processing for the MAG sensor unit, which has no data processing capability of its own.
sci.esa.int...

Maybe, and I'm just guessing, it's because none of the data supports your ideas and disproves them?? Is that why? I've looked on the EU forum and all I seem to find are a bunch of people stroking each others egos while mocking real scientists with real missions (presumably to make themselves feel special and important) and their analysis composes of looking at pictures while ignoring the remaining 90%+ of data.
You also slowly morph and change your ideas to the point where the electrical interactions you 'predict' basically become what is standard theory anyway! At the same time, completely forgetting the EU predictions of dead spacecraft, massive electrical discharges and SPACE LIGHTNING!!! I'm starting to see more and more when someone talks about a known and predicted electrical interaction EU people patting each other on the back like it was your idea and a surprise to real scientists?? What's that about? Delusions?

Try reading some of the papers detailing the actual results and you'll soon see you EU people are wrong :-(
(unless you've literally morphed your 'theory' to the point where it is standard theory anyway of course).

How a comet grows a magnetosphere

The comet approaches the Sun
Water molecules sublimate from the comet as it thaws
The water molecules are ionised by ultraviolet light from the Sun
Newborn ions are accelerated by the solar wind electric field and are detected by the RPC-ICA instrument
The solar wind accelerates the water ions in one direction, but is itself deflected in the opposite direction
rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov...

FIRST RESULTS AT 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO WITH THE ROSETTA PLASMA
CONSORTIUM - PDF File

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
It's obvious that the lights are plasma discharges excavating the crater. The primary discharge is smack in the middle of a large crater gouging out a smaller "bullseye" crater in the center. That's how bullseye craters are formed. This idea that separate impact events create bullseye craters is absurd.

The same is true for the "volcanoes" on Io. Those are not volcanoes. They are plasma discharges doing the same thing we see on Ceres. And the same goes for comets. Electrical discharges create the intense x-rays, filamented tails and massive comas we see coming from comets. All of these processes are electrical.

Yes, it's all very obvious to an Electric Universe believer, despite the absence of any data to support those statements. If such gigantic plasma discharges between the Sun and solar system bodies like Ceres really occured, it would be clearly detectable by the spacecraft operating out there.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
It's obvious that the lights are plasma discharges excavating the crater. The primary discharge is smack in the middle of a large crater gouging out a smaller "bullseye" crater in the center...

...The same is true for the "volcanoes" on Io. Those are not volcanoes. They are plasma discharges doing the same thing we see on Ceres....

If the bright spots on Ceres are plasma discharges instead of reflections, then why are they not visible as the crater spins towards the terminator line.

I suppose it could be that the sunlight has something to do with the plasma discharge, but then what about Io? The plumes on Io that are said to be from a sulfur volcano (that you say are similar plasma discharges) have been seen on the dark side of Io.

originally posted by: Charizard
Anyone notice that one of the "bright spots" seems to stand up above the surface of Ceres and even cast a shadow? My eyes may be playing tricks on me but if you watch the lower left hand corner you'll see it appear. Here's a screepcap of what I'm talking about:

I can't tell if that's actually a shadow from the bright object or a shadow of a small crater behind it. Either way it definitely stands out.

That caught my attention too! If you look at image 9 it appears to have a shadow...

Where did you get that image? At the site image 7 is an anaglyph and does not appear to be in the rotation series...ODD!

The obvious answer:




It's a cluster of massive vertical structures with a cylinder shape that's covered in reflective material to keep the sun's UV rays out. The cylinder shape explains why the brightness stays relatively uniform as Ceres rotates.

Geez NASA, get it together.

a reply to: Answer

Is that the building that "melted" a car?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Answer

Is that the building that "melted" a car?

I think so.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

FIRST RESULTS AT 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO WITH THE ROSETTA PLASMA
CONSORTIUM - PDF File

Thanks for the link.

Did you bother to read that paper you linked, or did you just assume it refutes my position?

Here's a few choice quotes:

Charged grains: The RPC-IES electron sensor has observed high energy particles extending between a few hundred eV/q and 20 keV/q that are interpreted to be negatively charged nanograins [8] because they have energies much higher than can be attributed to either solar wind or cometary electrons.

The “singing” comet: The RPC-MAG observed the generation of low frequency waves (~ 50 mHz) within 100 km of CG at a level that was two orders of magnitude greater than the quiet solar wind spectrum measured in May 2014 (Figure 3). Observllations showed broad band excitation in the 10-200 mHz band as well as time varying discrete monofrequent excitations in the 50 mHz region which have been described as the “singing comet”.

There's nothing in that paper that refutes my position, but there's plenty that supports it.

They do look quite a bit like the light from large cities at night. That would be great if that is what it was. Unless we find out that the inhabitants are meat eaters that love human flesh.

Aliens. Candlelight vigil. Elvis.

Japanese lantern festival.

originally posted by: torok67
They do look quite a bit like the light from large cities at night. That would be great if that is what it was. Unless we find out that the inhabitants are meat eaters that love human flesh.

At least we spotted them and know where to target the nukes.

"We found a new intelligent species on another planet but they probably won't get along with us so bomb em! It's the 'Murican way!"

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: torok67
They do look quite a bit like the light from large cities at night. That would be great if that is what it was. Unless we find out that the inhabitants are meat eaters that love human flesh.

At least we spotted them and know where to target the nukes.

"We found a new intelligent species on another planet but they probably won't get along with us so bomb em! It's the 'Murican way!"

no it's not. i suggest kava for you.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: torok67
They do look quite a bit like the light from large cities at night. That would be great if that is what it was. Unless we find out that the inhabitants are meat eaters that love human flesh.

At least we spotted them and know where to target the nukes.

"We found a new intelligent species on another planet but they probably won't get along with us so bomb em! It's the 'Murican way!"

Refresh my memory. .. has the U.S. used any nukes since 1945?