Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by Subterranean13



The PLACE you're taking the pictures doesn't matter. The hardware you're using DOES. The NAV-CAMS work off of a visual light spectrum. Cosmic Rays are not in that spectrum which is why no matter how long you keep your shutters open (eyes) you will never see a cosmic ray.

So....in order for ANY visual light camera to pick up particle light, the exposure time must be over one minute whether you're on the Moon or on Earth. Not only should shutter speed matter, but the ISO must be set to the highest setting as well...which the NC's obviously are not.

Just because there's no atmosphere or less/more gravity....doesn't change the parameters of the hardware and how it must be used to capture light it wasn't meant to capture. Much like you can't capture infrared images on your camera phone...the NAV-CAMS cannot, nor ever have caught a cosmic ray. And as of yet...I see no other NAV-CAM image which even comes close to the one I provided.

I'm not sure where the idea that NASA have said it's definitely not a cosmic ray comes from when the page with the image specifically mentions them:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Bright spots appear in images from the rover nearly every week. Typical explanations for them are cosmic rays hitting the light detector or sunlight glinting from rocks.

[Other examples]

One possible explanation for the bright spot in this image is a glint from a rock surface reflecting the sun. Another is a cosmic ray hitting the camera's light detector, a CCD (charge-coupled device). Cosmic ray patterns in Mars rover images vary from a dot to a long line depending on the angle at which the ray strikes the detector

reply to post by Subterranean13


Since none of you obviously read the link, here is the direct quote:


Blah, blah, blah......

"We think it's either a vent-hole light leak or a glinty rock."

Some cosmic rays/waves/particles can have the equivalent energy of a baseball travelling 90mph. Not bad for something about the size of an electron.

Miniscuzz
reply to post by Subterranean13

 

Just because there's no atmosphere or less/more gravity....doesn't change the parameters of the hardware and how it must be used to capture light it wasn't meant to capture. Much like you can't capture infrared images on your camera phone...the NAV-CAMS cannot, nor ever have caught a cosmic ray. And as of yet...I see no other NAV-CAM image which even comes close to the one I provided.

I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but cosmic rays arent light. They are particles that pass energy into the ccd.

Also, put your camera phone into camera mode, like you are about to take a photo, and point your infra-red tv remote at its camera. Press a button on the remote and see what you see on the camera screen. You picked a really bad example there, I guess because you aren't really understanding this very well.

I do a lot of photography with DSLR's how come I have never got a cosmic ray in over 10 years of taking pictures?! So unlucky when these things are supposedly flying all over the place

symptomoftheuniverse
Some cosmic rays/waves/particles can have the equivalent energy of a baseball travelling 90mph. Not bad for something about the size of an electron.

Rob48
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

This has been explained numerous times on this thread! It is not a particle entering through the lens as visible light. It is a charged particle striking the sensor electronics directly and causing electrons to flow in the sensor. Cosmic rays are NOT visible light so why are you even bringing up that red herring? Just think for a moment about how CCDs and similar sensors work.

Not that I am saying that this one is necessarily a cosmic ray. It could be a sun glint or light leaking through a hole in the housing as suggested by Justin Maki.

edit on 8-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

Sigh...listen....if you think that a cosmic ray hit the left NC on April 2nd and then again on the right NC just a day later while taking pictures of the exact same area, then no amount of proof I could provide will claim otherwise.

You realize that the sensors on the NC's are 1mm correct? I wonder what the odds are that cosmic rays would hit two separate 1mm sensors on two different cameras a day apart at the exact time they took a picture. So astronomical its completely laughable to even assume that it even happened lol.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Cosmic Rays are not in that spectrum which is why no matter how long you keep your shutters open (eyes) you will never see a cosmic ray.

Are you sure?

It was determined the astronauts were ‘seeing’ cosmic rays zipping through their eyeballs.

www.universetoday.com...

Just because there's no atmosphere or less/more gravity....doesn't change the parameters of the hardware and how it must be used to capture light it wasn't meant to capture.

Cosmic rays are not light.

the NAV-CAMS cannot, nor ever have caught a cosmic ray.

What's this?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I see no other NAV-CAM image which even comes close to the one I provided.

Since cosmic ray strikes are random in direction and energy level, it would be unusual to see very similar strikes in daylight images where, because of the short exposure times, they are not common.

Sometimes, extremely unlikely events occur. Go figure.

Although, the second image with an artifact does muddle the waters a bit, the mundane explanation can't be discounted totally. If it has any likelihood at all, it can happen.

reply to post by Subterranean13



I completely understand how cosmic rays are captured on film....YOU apparently DON'T understand that it's impossible for the NAVCAMS to allow for ANY residual particle light to be caught...period.


Do you understand how the program ICER works? No...because if you did, you'd realize that NC's won't send corrupted images whether its cosmic rays or alien phasers.

Do you understand that in order to have any residual particle light make it to the photo, the bandpass filters would have to be off the camera? No, because if you did, you wouldn't be muddying the waters with FUD.

Do you understand that particle light is completely different than other light? It doesn't matter what the cosmic ray hit...it's still going to produce a whole other spectrum of light that neither the NC's, the software ICER, the bandpass filters, would allow to be captured in the final image..Period, end of story. I haven't even gotten into the other programs onboard that also help with "noise". READ THE PDS file for crying out loud...it's all right there lol.

Wow...I'm done trying to debate with people who seemingly have no knowledge of what proceedures JPL has on board that Rover to STOP this exact thing from happening. I mean seriously...if it were that easy to catch cosmic ray light, you'd think every single picture would have this anomaly in it. Heck...I bet Phage nearly busted a blood vessel coming up with that ONE NAVCAM shot which kinda looks like the original one....kinda.

It's so obvious what this is that I can't believe there is any debate about it.

It's obviously a plasma discharge.

It's what the Electric Universe theory has been predicting about the Martian surface for decades now.

It looks exactly like the discharges we see coming from comet surfaces, which are also plasma discharges.

This is what a plasma discharge looks like in space:

astrobob.areavoices.com...

www.ifa.hawaii.edu...

reply to post by Miniscuzz

You realize that the sensors on the NC's are 1mm correct?

Um. No. The CCDs are 1200 x 1400 pixels. Each pixel is 12 x 12 microns. About 1/2" by 1/2".

So astronomical its completely laughable to even assume that it even happened lol.

That would depend upon the number of cosmic ray hits per square meter per sec. On Earth that number is about 200/m2/s. On Mars it would be higher.

reply to post by Phage



Oh...I'm sure lol. Seeing particle light cannot happen with your eyes OPEN...like a picture. They seen particle light with their eyes closed because they were being bombarded with radiation silly. The lights they were seeing are a direct result of being irradiated, not because their eyes were somehow able to convert the particle energy into something that can be seen in a visual spectrum. They weren't "seeing" anything lol...their bodies were alerting them to the presence of radiation. WOW...you are reaching Phage.

Your last statement struck me. If it's so hard to capture cosmic rays which look similar on Mars, how is it possible that the EXACT same light was captured by two separate cameras on two separate days in the exact same vicinity if it can't happen like that??

You are a legend in your own mind man lol. Keep reachin....

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Do you understand that particle light is completely different than other light?

What is particle light?

PLEASE!

This is a great thread and I'd hate to see it go in a wrong direction again, due to an inability to debate theories without getting personal.

Please respect others right to their opinions and keep the posts entirely on the topic.

Blaine91555
Forum Moderator

Do not reply to this post.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

They seen particle light with their eyes closed because they were being bombarded with radiation silly.

What is particle light? Cosmic rays are radiation, silly.

They weren't "seeing" anything lol...their bodies were alerting them to the presence of radiation.

Yes, the cosmic rays were producing a physical effect.

how is it possible that the EXACT same light was captured by two separate cameras

It is not exactly the same. It was the same camera but what difference would that make?

Miniscuzz
Do you understand that particle light is completely different than other light? It doesn't matter what the cosmic ray hit...it's still going to produce a whole other spectrum of light that neither the NC's, the software ICER, the bandpass filters, would allow to be captured in the final image..

It isn't "light", in any spectrum. It's a physical reaction to the energy in a cosmic particle impacting the inner-workings of the camera.

Even if it turns out not to be a cosmic particle or ray, I would hope that eventually you'll suss to the fact that what is captured by cameras as "cosmic rays" isn't a reaction caused by any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is literally a mechanical action at the atomic level:

www.eso.org...

"When a high energy particle hits the CCD, it loses its energy by knocking the atoms constituting the chip itself. That liberates many electrons that cause a bright spot on the image"

If you refuse to understand that, it makes it very difficult for anyone with critical thinking skills to take you seriously. Please, go learn what is happening when cosmic particles strike CCDs.

reply to post by Phage



You keep babbling about cosmic rays. I will side with the JPL scientists which claim otherwise. How nice it must be up there on your pedistal...being smarter than all of us as well as scientists at NASA and JPL lol.

You are debating something while skipping over the points that don't fit your version of events. You've managed to find one other NC photo which is somewhat similar to the one I found...yet...it's only ONE photo. The light in the original photo was caught twice...by two separate cameras...on two separate days...which you claim is just the same event happening twice...which makes the odds so astronomical that infinity isn't large enough to cover it.

Now....I read that there are two sensors for each NC and that they were each 1mm wide. Assuming I'm incorrect, and they are indeed a half an inch, how exactly does that make the scenario any more plausible?? It doesn't.

Miniscuzz
reply to post by Subterranean13

 

I completely understand how cosmic rays are captured on film....YOU apparently DON'T understand that it's impossible for the NAVCAMS to allow for ANY residual particle light to be caught...period.

The Mars rover does not use film, its digital.

Miniscuzz
The light in the original photo was caught twice...by two separate cameras...on two separate days...which you claim is just the same event happening twice...which makes the odds so astronomical that infinity isn't large enough to cover it.

Actually, I think it makes it quite a bit more likely.