Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by Phage


Phage, always the downer, man (smiley face here)....haven't you heard of the Martian dark-matter bee?

So this once again shows that something is amiss in the one camera, and maybe adds a little more evidence that the "lights" are in-camera anomalies.

This is cracking me up. Every time someone states the time difference, it is a different number. I've seen 5.2 ms, 0.52 ms, 52 ms ...

reply to post by lindalinda


Don't forget the 520 u seconds......whatever that is.

Phage
What do you think a cosmic ray is?


The timestamp for the images shows that they were taken within the same second. There is no reason they cannot be simultaneous.
52ms is the the time it takes for the image to be "downloaded" from the CCD.

I thought i read in some previous page that 52ms was the time between the capturing of these these 2 pictures,sorry my bad.
I honestly don't know what a cosmic ray is. I assumed a ray is a bunch of particles from what i read before i made my post.
""Cosmic Rays, high-energy radiation consisting chiefly of subatomic particles moving at nearly the speed of light. "" (ext source). If cosmic ray is "a bunch of particles", that's why i said " number of cosmic rays hitting a 1 m2 area of mars /sec (NOT particles,number of RAYS)" . Please correct me if i'm wrong and fill in the knowledge gap here.
"There is no reason they cannot be simultaneous."- i gave logical reasons why it MAY not be simultaneous. Nasa is not using factory produced cameras,we would need documentation to check if rover's mastcam systems takes both pics at the same time to be 100% sure.

Rob48
reply to post by chester1908

 

I love the way your post is full of "coulds" and "mights" and wild speculation - it is clear you haven't a clue how the cameras work, or how a CCD works, or what a cosmic ray is ("NOT particles"? Really?), or how the photographs are timed. And clearly you have no interest in finding out, because then you might run the risk of finding a mundane explanation rather than ALIENS

I love the way you answer using irony. Correct or not,on the subject or on any given arguement,i didn't offend you or your "proposal" in any way which would justify your saying -and i quote- "I love the way your post is full of "coulds" and "mights" and wild speculation".
Now i CLEARLY STATED, in the piece of text which is MY TWO CENTS WORTH OF OPINION and nothing more -and i quote my text this time- "Now i am going to make an assumption here, or maybe educated guess. The fact that nasa equipped the rover with 2 cameras so they can take stereo images doesn't mean it captures them simultaneously...." . You should have noticed the words assumption+ or maybe educated guess. Educated literally since i had been having software engineering courses last semester,on embedded systems. Now YOUR reply to that was -and i quote you again- "it is clear you haven't a clue how the cameras work, or how a CCD works. " .That is correct sir,if i had a clue i wouldn't be making assumptions.
And ofcourse from a post containing 35 lines you only kept one word which you were sure summed up my thoughts
so it was the last word AND in bold: ALIENS. Im the ALIENS guy right?
Listen to me friend, your tone of conversation in not polite enough. If you feel that my original post and your answer to it have the same tone you are dead wrong. And this is not an assumption or an educated guess,its a fact. I will contact the forum administrator tomorrow for your case because i joined these forums to learn stuff, listen to people and write my thoughts even if they are worthless, not to read replies like yours.

Some people in this forum either have diplomas which are trying desperately to make 'public' to boost their ego, or they have no diplomas and try to hide it by major wikipedia/google spamming,making them feel they compensate for it. Either way there is no need for rage and irony, pull it together and be polite.

MrPennyYou haven't bothered to research any examples that show it can't happen, have you?

really? that's what you're going with?

reply to post by chester1908

Please correct me if i'm wrong and fill in the knowledge gap here.

A cosmic ray is a single particle.
Several cosmic rays would be several particles.

we would need documentation to check if rover's mastcam systems takes both pics at the same time to be 100% sure.

This is true but we do know that both images were taken in the same second. If not simultaneous, they were no more than one second apart.

bottleslingguy

MrPennyYou haven't bothered to research any examples that show it can't happen, have you?

really? that's what you're going with?

Yeah. I figure if you're going to ask the same question repeatedly without getting an answer that eventually you'll decide "heck with that, I'll find out myself and impress the beans out of everybody." I'm only encouraging you to check some stuff out.

What's wrong with that?

chester1908
Listen to me friend, your tone of conversation in not polite enough. If you feel that my original post and your answer to it have the same tone you are dead wrong. And this is not an assumption or an educated guess,its a fact. I will contact the forum administrator tomorrow for your case because i joined these forums to learn stuff, listen to people and write my thoughts even if they are worthless, not to read replies like yours.

"Dead wrong" is threat speech. What was that about being polite?

Go ahead and contact the forum admin, lol. You know you're on the Internet, right? Go ahead and try to get him banned from the web, heh. This is not a Holiday Inn, he is not your bag-boy, and the admins despite being able to guide the tone of forum speech are not his boss.

"Listen to people" and "not to read replies like yours" -- in the same sentence. So you only want to read what agrees with you. Interesting approach to learning. Did you get your fiber today?

chester1908
Some people in this forum either have diplomas which are trying desperately to make 'public' to boost their ego, or they have no diplomas and try to hide it by major wikipedia/google spamming,making them feel they compensate for it. Either way there is no need for rage and irony, pull it together and be polite.

What was that about being polite? Yes, you are the picture of it...

That would be the same as 0.52 milliseconds. For those unfamiliar, a 'u' is often used to signify micro, because it looks like the Greek letter mu, μ.

520 microseconds = 0.000 520 seconds = 0.52 milliseconds.

MrPenny
reply to post by lindalinda

 

Don't forget the 520 u seconds......whatever that is.

Huh....learned something today. Very nice.

Thanks.

Phage
reply to post by chester1908

 

Please correct me if i'm wrong and fill in the knowledge gap here.

A cosmic ray is a single particle.
Several cosmic rays would be several particles.

we would need documentation to check if rover's mastcam systems takes both pics at the same time to be 100% sure.

This is true but we do know that both images were taken in the same second. If not simultaneous, they were no more than one second apart.

edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Actually they were taken within milliseconds of each other. Exposure times are expected to vary from a few tens of msec to a couple of hundred msec, depending on the band-pass filter and the desired signal-to-noise ratio.In other words if they set them different like one full color and the other infrared there can be a couple hundred milliseconds different. However if both are set the same like we have here than your looking at tens of milliseconds.Or to put it simply by all practical purposes the photos were taken at the same time. because i cant think of anything that would disappear in 10 milliseconds.

You should see my dog with a hunk of bacon then.

So does the cosmic ray only affect one camera? why not both?

reply to post by DrMescalito

A cosmic ray is an atomic particle. It is very small.
It could affect both cameras if it went through both cameras but that didn't happen this time.

reply to post by Phage


And this is what I said many pages ago.
It seems there IS some latency gap there, be it within a second.
That's why it's plausible to consider the second cam missed the rock reflection.
And that's why NASA is also considering rock reflection.

It's clear you advocate the cosmic ray theory, and I respect that. What I don't understand is why you're so reluctant to "at least" consider something else occurred in this case.

Someone else also pointed out the quality disparity between the left and right pictures. No one seemed willing to comment on that. But in fact one picture is a lot smoother than the other (just see the sky's granularity). What's your take on that Phage? It's odd.

Arken
reply to post by LordAdef

 

Well it seems my first proposition wasn't so out of the loop after all.
In fact that latency gap may be enough to produce different images
Thus, it might be a strong argument to fight the cosmic ray theory

Exactly,

but, beware to "the cosmic ray boy"...

I'm cool and sweet Arken!!

Should we call it the "Light Beacon"???

Since I'm only using this as a temporary celebratory/commemoration avatar I'll leave a copy on this thread so that future generations, who will have grown up knowing not only that life on Mars was once or is a fact but may well be growing it in petri dishes, will marvel at the ingenuity of people who were actually from Earth:



from the Wikipedia article on Mars Light (sounds like one of those near beers) : en.wikipedia.org...

Mars Lights are signal-safety lights used in the United States and built by Mars Signal Light Company for railroad locomotives and fire apparatus. Mars Lights used a variety of means to cause the light to oscillate vertically, horizontally, or both, to catch the attention of motorists and pedestrians.

Mars lights were developed by Jerry Kennelly, a Chicago firefighter who realized that oscillating lamps would benefit fire departments and railroads. He performed an operational test with the C&NW railroad in 1936, and Mars Lights began appearing on locomotives in the 1940s.

reply to post by LordAdef

That's why it's plausible to consider the second cam missed the rock reflection. And that's why NASA is also considering rock reflection.

Was the rock moving? Why else would the reflection last less than one second? I think the reflection theory could concievably apply to the first instance, when the area with the "flash" was obscured by the hill, but not the second.

It's clear you advocate the cosmic ray theory, and I respect that. What I don't understand is why you're so reluctant to "at least" consider something else occurred in this case.

I have considered the "light leak" idea, though I thought it odd.

But in fact one picture is a lot smoother than the other (just see the sky's granularity). What's your take on that Phage? It's odd.

It's two different cameras. If you look at other pairs you will see that the slight (to me) difference is consistent between them.

This is something I asked way back when this topic first started, but I never got an answer. I'm not saying anything specific about the light specks in the images, but are there any mechanisms on Mars that could generate small bits, flashes, etc., of light? I'm thinking that on Earth there are all kinds of things that do that, but the way I understand it, they generally require the presence of water. Anything like that on Mars? Static electric discharges? Piezoelectric effects? Glowing swamp gases (minus the swamp)?

I wonder. I'm a wonderer.

reply to post by Blue Shift

No liquid water. Not enough atmospheric pressure.

No surface ice at the latitude of the MSL. At least none found as yet.

Static discharge. Maybe, but a static charge built up from what and discharging to what?

Piezoelectric. That would be a big piezospark but caused by what? Doesn't seem to be much tectonic activity on Mars. But who knows? Viking didn't show us any marsquakes but other than that we haven't been equipped to look.

Swamp gas. MSL has not detected even low amounts of methane.


On the other hand. We do know that cosmic rays do make shiny things on digital images.