What is this thing near the Sun? Is it a comet or meteorite? It hangs out for at least a week.

The best thing about this thread is OP was shown that it is Mercury but for some reason OP finds it amusing not to believe it.

I have to ask: What exactly was the point of this thread? Because you ask for what it is, with the preconceived notion that it isn't a planet, and when multiple posters give you proof that it is Mercury, all the while countering the tin-foilyness that is JrDavis (a heat shield? Really now?), you still choose to believe it isn't a planet. So if you're not trying to find out what this object is (it's Mercury, btw), then what exactly is the point of this thread?

I'm just enjoying the conversation.



Besides, you can't believe that only you people exist in the world and not others.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Manhater

 

Well you must have some thoughts on what it is then if not a planet. What do you think it is ?

It's something.

I'm not speculating.

Mercury ALWAYS looks like that in STEREO COR2. For instance, Mercury should be visible from STEREO Behind COR2 on August 18th 2012, sure enough it was, right where it should be:
i319.photobucket.com...
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
And oh look, it had the same appearance complete with "heat shield." It's just the way the optics distort the bright light of Mercury!
It even had the same "squashed" appearance when close to the sun, same as your example:
i319.photobucket.com...
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
Another example of how Mercury can appear in STEREO, from April 25th:
i319.photobucket.com...
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
And now the spiky version, which occurs when Mercury is at the top left of the field of view, as seen back on December 22, 2011:
i319.photobucket.com...
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
Do you now understand that it's just Mercury and that this is how the optics make it look? It doesn't tell you anything about the real shape or size of it, it's just how it looks over-exposed. These exposures are long enough to show stars, if I used an exposure that long on Mercury with my telescope it'd also be over-exposed.

edit on 11-12-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

I also want to point out that the JPGs you see on the stereo website have also been heavily contrast-enhanced, so even the slightest bit of optical distortion producing a glow around a planet like Mercury will be drastically enhanced by the processing they do to bring out the solar corona. I converted the raw FITS file for the last STEREO image I presented there and did no enhancement, I simply adjusted the histogram levels so that the brightest pixels are at the top and the darkest pixels at the bottom, then saved it to an 8 bit JPG. Here's the result:
i319.photobucket.com...
vs the STEREO website's processed version:
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
As you can Mercury actually looks normal, it looks like just a normal dot of light, but when you do all the enhancement they do to bring out the solar corona, the slight optical distortions of Mercury's light become exaggerated and Mercury itself is blown out as the solar corona is very dim by comparison. I did my own processing of the raw image to bring out the corona, and while it was very quick and dirty, you can once again see the same optical distortion of Mercury's shape that is seen in the JPG version on the STEREO site:
i319.photobucket.com...

reply to post by ngchunter


I guess that is what I was trying to say in my post,

You have done it so much better...I'm a lazy fart.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I guess that is what I was trying to say in my post,

You have done it so much better...I'm a lazy fart.

Thanks! I could have done a much better job on my own "processed" version though. I was being a bit lazy there myself with my quick and dirty version, so I decided to give it another go and do it the right way. The result recreates NASA's processed JPG version quite well I think:
i319.photobucket.com...
QED.

There a question I what to say if you can answer this. If we been told that it a planet
And it been named that planet. How do know it planet?? It could be anything...

reply to post by nigel1313


Read through the thread.

Your question has been answered in several different ways.

I am almost completely convinced that it is "beetleguse" the brightest star in the sky. Why do i think its that?!
Because I have been watching this star for quite a while, imagine it orbiting behind the sun. By the time rises and sets 60 ish +20- times, the star will have made about one time around the sky.

Originally posted by nigel1313
There a question I what to say if you can answer this. If we been told that it a planet
And it been named that planet. How do know it planet?? It could be anything...

You could find out for yourself with Celestia by putting STEREO Behind's orbital elements into the program by hand and then seeing what it should see from its perspective. That's what I did. It's Mercury.

Originally posted by jordanAKbramsen
I am almost completely convinced that it is "beetleguse" the brightest star in the sky. Why do i think its that?!
Because I have been watching this star for quite a while, imagine it orbiting behind the sun. By the time rises and sets 60 ish +20- times, the star will have made about one time around the sky.

All stars move left to right in the sat's FOV. It's due to the movement of the sats however, not the stars themselves of course.

Originally posted by jordanAKbramsen
I am almost completely convinced that it is "beetleguse" the brightest star in the sky. Why do i think its that?!
Because I have been watching this star for quite a while, imagine it orbiting behind the sun. By the time rises and sets 60 ish +20- times, the star will have made about one time around the sky.

Betelgeuse is not the brightest star in the night sky. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about, but the object is Mercury:

reply to post by DarkBringer


You didn't burst his bubble, or anyone elses for that matter. People have been saying it's Mercury since the start of this thread. Try reading it next time, that might help. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by DarkBringer

 

You didn't burst his bubble, or anyone elses for that matter. People have been saying it's Mercury since the start of this thread. Try reading it next time, that might help. ~$heopleNation

People have also been presenting facts and evidence to show that it's Mercury, but certain individuals seem immune to things like facts and evidence.

it's Nibiru. I've studied nothing, thought about it for 3 seconds and it's definitely Nibiru.

second

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by ngchunter

 

That was the point of my post guy. So what exactly did your brain not comprehend about that other than looking to start trouble for no reason whatsoever?

How about you participate in the discussion instead of being a troll? Put your ego away, and stick to the subject of the thread.

Your energy might be better directed towards that instead of trying to sway posters off topic just so you can pathetically attempt to get some self righteous kick off some fantasy power trip. LMAO!

~$heopleNation

What the hell is this all about? Did you respond to the right post, because your reply to ngchunter seems non sequitir with what he said.

All ngchunter was pointing out is that the OP and "JrDavis" continue to deny that the object could possibly be Mercury even though they have been continually shown strong evidence (much of it by ngchunter) that is is in fact Mercury.

So, yeah -- there are still people on this thread who continue to not listen to the evidence, no matter how many times they are presented with evidence.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I certainly didn't consider your butt being hurt, cause it had nothing to do with you. However, it's now noted just to make you feel better. ~$heopleNation