How can we still not have Answers for Ceres Lights?

The length of time NASA takes to reveal definitive answers will be telling. If we get into late-autumn and we don't hear a peep, you can be darn sure it's not salt flats or water.

I'm still guessing it's some sort of radioactive or otherwise previously undiscovered matter, non-organic. But I'm willing to be persuaded either way.

How about giant diamond or other gem thats covered with dust, and we are just seeing the clean bits. Could be dense areas of any reflective element such as silver, gold, etc. You can be sure they would be mining the heck out of it if proven platinum or such. We would never hear a peep about it in the early phase you can bet.

a reply to: weirdguy

Check the photo on this page then:

www.theglobaltrip.com...

www.theglobaltrip.com...

to be fair, we don't have answers on such a ridiculous amount of unnervingly bizarre phenomena...
We [as a species] look at them for a brief period, wig right out, and then slide on to the next inexplicable event
telling ourselves the whole while that okay, we can't explain this one event, but generally science is pretty robust
we'll get to the bottom of it eventually....

having said that, i did expect at least a bit more back and forth on this particular item than we got.
good to read that another, closer orbit is on the cards
hopefully there's enough visual material forthcoming to fuel some real discussion about it this time.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: weirdguy

Check the photo on this page then:

www.theglobaltrip.com...

www.theglobaltrip.com...

Those salt flats are covered with water. It is the water reflecting not the salt.

a reply to: weirdguy

The albedo, or ability to reflect light, of Ceres is about 9%. This means that of all the light that teaches Ceres only 9% is reflected back. This is pretty low, due to the dark soil and dust that compromises most of the surface. So when you have an area of a significantly higher albedo in these dark areas, the contrast makes it go all wonky and creates the bright spots we're seeing in the photographs.

For comparisons: The albedo of ice is around 35%, while snow can reach up to the mid-80s% if it's really fresh. I don't know what salt is offhand, but 20-40% comes to mind got some reason.

So it could be salt, at least until salt is officially ruled out.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
The irony here is killing me.

Nasa puts something out and it's quickly jumped on here as:

BS, lies, hoax, no straight answer, disinformation.

Nasa doesn't put something out or is quiet about something and:

It's a cover up! They're hiding something! Aliens! They don't want us to know!

The waffling is making me think I'm in a pancake house.......

Lol, fair point. Maybe the citizenry decided to ban together to troll NASA!

NASA lies! Ceres is a dodecahedron.

a reply to: weirdguy

Lol - it was too early in the morning to be making posts I happily admit my mistake.

Anyhow, salt crystals will reflect as well as refract light Shine a torch on some and see!

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: weirdguy

The albedo, or ability to reflect light, of Ceres is about 9%. This means that of all the light that teaches Ceres only 9% is reflected back. This is pretty low, due to the dark soil and dust that compromises most of the surface. So when you have an area of a significantly higher albedo in these dark areas, the contrast makes it go all wonky and creates the bright spots we're seeing in the photographs.

For comparisons: The albedo of ice is around 35%, while snow can reach up to the mid-80s% if it's really fresh. I don't know what salt is offhand, but 20-40% comes to mind got some reason.

So it could be salt, at least until salt is officially ruled out.

Ceres isn't covered in dark soil. Check out this pic from Hubble, the bright spot is seen clearly even back in 2004.



It's aliens I tells ya!

a reply to: bananashooter

Why post something you admit is 'crappy', and 'bad' ?
Do you think people want to read something that is crappy and bad?

a reply to: In4ormant

I'm with you on this Info. Regardless of what Nasa says they'll be shot to pieces. Nasa cannot speculate in this regards. They can't say it's salt or ice as they have no direct evidence. The Ceres lights could be from something totally new and undiscovered as yet but all we have is some pics.

Until tangible proof is presented then nothing is assured. I can't see Nasa saying anything factual at this point or in the near future.

Kind regards,

Bally

Maybe the lights have turned off?

The silence about the lights really bothers me .. I've got the feeling they will bleed it to death..

Love it. People who know nothing about space exploration/physics/astronomy moaning that the guys who actually DO know things and have put a satellite in orbit around a dwarf planet are not working fast enough to answer the questions that have cropped up.

It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad..

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Love it. People who know nothing about space exploration/physics/astronomy moaning that the guys who actually DO know things and have put a satellite in orbit around a dwarf planet are not working fast enough to answer the questions that have cropped up.

It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad..

Laughable ? You're absolutely right asking thepublic what it could be sounds more laughable, and then to ask who are the bright scientists around us here we or them?

It's not my tax that's put in to that mission but if it was ... ?
All the guessed options they gave us ended into dismissive answers,so now we're out of options let's ask the people... ehhh right???

I say throw a ball in the park you might accidentally hit somthing. .

a reply to: weirdguy

Dark in terms of reflectivity, or albedo. It's bright when compared to other asteroids and objects in the belt, such typically have an albedo around 4%. But really, it has a very low albedo overall.

originally posted by: 0bserver1

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Love it. People who know nothing about space exploration/physics/astronomy moaning that the guys who actually DO know things and have put a satellite in orbit around a dwarf planet are not working fast enough to answer the questions that have cropped up.

It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad..

Laughable ? You're absolutely right asking thepublic what it could be sounds more laughable, and then to ask who are the bright scientists around us here we or them?

It's not my tax that's put in to that mission but if it was ... ?
All the guessed options they gave us ended into dismissive answers,so now we're out of options let's ask the people... ehhh right???

I say throw a ball in the park you might accidentally hit somthing. .

I couldnt quite undrestand what you wrote, but no...we are not smarter than them when it comes to things like this. Not only hat but we dont have all the data to assess. People expect science to be right all the time and to come out with answers QUICKLY..

Well, sorry folks, it doesnt work like that. You can see that as a conspiracy or just the way things are when humans are trying to figure thigs out.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: weirdguy

Dark in terms of reflectivity, or albedo. It's bright when compared to other asteroids and objects in the belt, such typically have an albedo around 4%. But really, it has a very low albedo overall.

Exactly. Its not like there is a massive spotlight on the face of Ceres.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: weirdguy

The albedo, or ability to reflect light, of Ceres is about 9%. This means that of all the light that teaches Ceres only 9% is reflected back. This is pretty low, due to the dark soil and dust that compromises most of the surface. So when you have an area of a significantly higher albedo in these dark areas, the contrast makes it go all wonky and creates the bright spots we're seeing in the photographs.

For comparisons: The albedo of ice is around 35%, while snow can reach up to the mid-80s% if it's really fresh. I don't know what salt is offhand, but 20-40% comes to mind got some reason.

So it could be salt, at least until salt is officially ruled out.

The figure I found for fresh salt was a maximum of about 0.4 albedo (40 percent reflectivity). The current figure given for the bright spots is ~ 50 percent. I'm seriously inclined to doubt it's salt. So is NASA, I expect. Still, they're being careful and thorough; checking the most likely things first.

It might be some other light colored minerals, plowed up by asteroid impacts, but NASA has already noted that the distribution of the spots isn't like that of normal cratering.
Maybe some gas trapped below the surface, blowing up surface dust. Not at all likely, especially on this large scale, and on a continuing basis, but it can't be entirely ruled out yet.
Cryovolcanoes, or geysers--probably not, they should have been able to detect the water vapor, but didn't. Besides that, Ceres isn't tidally squeezed, as Enceladus is by nearby Saturn. Where's the heat to drive them?

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Why not, why ask why?

originally posted by: Xeven
Seriously. We been in Orbit awhile now and Nasa still wont try and explain those bright spots? There must be a cover up. Either they are hiding something or we sent and inadequate probe way on in deep space. Why would we not have instruments on Dawn to help us determine what those spots could be?

We knew for instance there could be water out there, yet...silence.

I don't think it is easy to determine the surface materials. Reflectance spectra are normally how they determine them, but even for the Moon there isn't a lot of information, Iron I have seen maps for, but either it is not as simple as it sounds, or the data goes to the Military/Industrial corporations for when they get into mining one day, and don't want to share the data?

Reflectance Spectra Tutorial

www.astro.washington.edu...