Ceres - and it's not so anomalies

There is quite a bit of hype and understandable anxiousness for the closer ups of Ceres.

There have been threads here already talking about; UFOs, pyramids, towers, I think I read somewhere, a monster drinking out of s lake.

What a fun bunch we are

My input for Ceres, regarding these things, and I apologize I'm doing this without pics, a bit lame I know.

The ufo, was I belive shown to be a type of artifact in the pictures.

The pyramid is a large mound/mountain/hill. A naturally occurred geophysical occurrence.
In the photo, shows, there are massive craters near this thing, maybe the build up of the debris/landscape.

Finally the "Lights"! Oh yes..

This is a dwarf planet orbiting on the asteroid (a steroid? Just noticed that) belt, between Mars and Mr. Super Big, Jupiter.

Such a rocky body, orbiting around this area, where solar light/heat is obscured, is going to build up of ice over time.

We are talking many thousands to millions of years of orbiting in the shadows, in the distance. The freezing temperatures will build up ice.

Regarding the main "lights" in the crater.. the crater is the spot, less light/heat will penetrate, and have shadow over casting most of the inside - ice build up.

So yea, I believe it's just ice building up. It's a large rock, floating in the distance of the traffic, asteroid belt, where light is occasionally obscured.

Space is space. Lots of rocks and stuff, where temperature creates life under Perfect conditions. Or freezes building up ice, where heat is absent occasionally.

I'm no scientist or photo expert. This is my disclaimer

a reply to: Elementalist

Not that isolated from light if it is reflecting so brightly. Sure, it could be ice. Extraterrestrial.... anything seems unlikely to me at this juncture. It could be metal, water ice, frozen gas. We just don't know, and I love a good mystery. Any time new pictures come out I'm on them like white on rice.

a reply to: Elementalist
While I agree with almost all of your post,

Such a rocky body, orbiting around this area, where solar light/heat is obscured, is going to build up of ice over time.

I believe that it was probably covered with more ice millions of years ago. What we see there now is what remains, as it would over time sublimate into space.

while i would love for actual alien artifacts/structures, even lights on ceres to be discovered, i fully expect that the final, best-resolution imagery (available to the public) will reveal nothing of the sort. like everyone else i shall have to wait and see.

I think it could be argued that there is too much brightness for ice, but we'll see.

So 'Ceres And it's not-so anomalies.'

Hmmm let me think about that While i look at your OP.

Funny, i see nothing but your opinon here - not even a source in agreement.

Perhaps your thread title should read 'and it's not so anomalies - as declared by, ME!'

Nice OP.

originally posted by: smurfy
I think it could be argued that there is too much brightness for ice, but we'll see.

Nope! It all depends on the relative brightness. For example look what happens if you auto expose at a rock concert where the camera exposure is perfect for the crowd and surrounding area (body of Ceres) then the band on stage comes out as bright white glowing blobs !!!! Exactly the same as we are seeing on Ceres. I have never thought those rock musicians were heavenly bodies bathed in aural light......despite the guitar playing.

The human eye adjusts for different illumination levels across the field of view (at a concert) but a photographic exposure depends on how the camera adjusts to the whole field of view in a "one'r".

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
while i would love for actual alien artifacts/structures, even lights on ceres to be discovered, i fully expect that the final, best-resolution imagery (available to the public) will reveal nothing of the sort. like everyone else i shall have to wait and see.

i agree the pics we get will reveal nothing...

even if there is something there

But Jupiter, mr Big as you say, doesn't block light from the sun to Ceres as Ceres is in an orbit that is inside Jupiter's.
The rest of the things I more or less agree with, and the pyramid...I prefer to call it the pimple.

originally posted by: Jonjonj the pyramid...I prefer to call it the pimple.

ha ha 'the pimple' doesn't quite have the gravitas of 'the pyramid'

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Elementalist
While I agree with almost all of your post,

Such a rocky body, orbiting around this area, where solar light/heat is obscured, is going to build up of ice over time.

I believe that it was probably covered with more ice millions of years ago. What we see there now is what remains, as it would over time sublimate into space.

Yes of course, that's why I said many thousands to millions of years.

We have no idea of its position before the telescope was invented. And way before that!

Again, I know Ceres is not blocked by light... that's why we see it. Sorry for not being specific, I thought that was a given hence the photos all over the net.

I related that comment in my OP, regarding its history of positioning. Not current.

originally posted by: lightedhype
So 'Ceres And it's not-so anomalies.'

Hmmm let me think about that While i look at your OP.

Funny, i see nothing but your opinon here - not even a source in agreement.

Perhaps your thread title should read 'and it's not so anomalies - as declared by, ME!'

Nice OP.

It's my thread, I'll call it whatever I want thank you very much.

Sorry to disappoint.

The point is, the anomalies as everyone is giving attention too, are natural.

I'm sure that's Nasa's opinion too

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: Jonjonj the pyramid...I prefer to call it the pimple.

ha ha 'the pimple' doesn't quite have the gravitas of 'the pyramid'

I know right? But I like the idea of a Juvenile Ceres, growing pains and all that.

Only in regards to the light(s): the GIFs I've seen show Ceres to be rotating, right? I could see the lights being ice, except they don't seem to dim or brighten, as I would expect them to if they were reflecting light. Why wouldn't they?

That's the main reason why I'm pretty intrigued to see more...

originally posted by: japhrimu
Only in regards to the light(s): the GIFs I've seen show Ceres to be rotating, right? I could see the lights being ice, except they don't seem to dim or brighten, as I would expect them to if they were reflecting light. Why wouldn't they?

That's the main reason why I'm pretty intrigued to see more...

The thing about the gif, is that the brights spots don't come into view from the left they just appear near midway, the exit on the right has more frames. But even though the head on frames are overexposed almost right to the exit terminator, at the exit terminator, there is still the effect, or reality of terrain stopping the light. looking closely, the spot at the extreme right, (which we now understand is a plethera of light sources) does actually start to fade, while the one on the left, (also having more than one source, stays bright, doesn't fade, but just disappears. That suggests high dark terrain between them.
That's likely one reason for NASA suggesting pools of ice water, but still they also know that something vaporous is more reflective than ice, so Ice Volcanoes are still on the cards and probably much more efficient in scattering light, and that's the nub. A team leader at NASA had said much earlier that the brightness is "off the scale"
"Carol Raymond, deputy project scientist at JPL. “Their apparent brightness is off the scale.” "The spots are probably patches of ice either excavated by asteroid impacts or blown out of cryovolcanoes." That's one statement that needs to be looked at closely.

I'll run with sleeper on this one/Lou Baldin.

As well as something else...how cold it is depends on atmosphere, in Electric Universe anyway. So not sure things are quite what they seem. The pictures don't even look like some earlier ones, so the pictures can't be trusted as most pics of theirs can't be.

Even meteors are interesting, whats inside some of them, but this is something else.

I like Ceres anyway.

Like this pic:



This was a real one. And since they're showing something more like a lifeless moon, everything they're doing is slight of hand and BS.

Nasa does not believe it is ice:

“…exposed ice would sublime, that is, evaporate into the vacuum of space. An impact could excavate through dirt and into ice below and leave a temporary exposure but this would not last long. If it is ice we need a way to replenish the ice or keep it clean from dust and debris so we can see it. So any mechanism for producing the bright spots seems to be complicated. I am not expecting a trivial solution to this conundrum.”

My first thought was a rich deposit of magnesium ignited by a small surface impact. The duration of the event will be very telling.

a reply to: Elementalist

I wonder why the other craters don't have such lights - if it's just ice?

originally posted by: smurfy
I think it could be argued that there is too much brightness for ice, but we'll see.

Careful, the grayscale is stretched to provide reasonable contrast variation over most of the surface. Not eyeball-true.

Ceres Light Anomaly