Regarding Those Bright Spots on Ceres. . . WE WERE WRONG!

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for the info Soylent, but if we're calling a spade a spade here, you, me and 99% of this website knows full well that if those bright spots are anything other than naturally occurring phenomena like ice geysers, frozen CO2 or just very reflective rocks...we'd never hear about it, and certainly not from NASA on anything approaching an official announcement.

SO really, the closer the probe gets and starts to send the hires images, is probably when we are told it's ice.

Always have to at the logic you apply if they don't give information they are hiding something and if they say it's natural they are lying no wonder members on conspiracy sites get ridiculed !!!

Since most good guesses have been taken, I'm going to take a wild stab. I wonder if it was hit by a very large meteorites (are they meteorites if the hit another planet or only earth?). But I think the meteorite was in fact a massive chunk of metal, frozen solid, maybe even made of mercury? Anyhoo, it hits, big bada-boom, and the friction heat melts the metals to liquid states for a few hours (days, weeks?) which then solidify as a 'lake' of metal. Nice shiny smooth reflective surface.

Going to exit my ground breaking science for my morning poo.

It's parts of an ship that crashed on Ceres by the sentient beings who tried to escape Mars before they get wiped out about 65million years ago. Some fled to Earth while others tried to get outside. They knew that Earth was hostile filled with strange creatures which we call Dinosaurs today so they wiped them out as well. Wishful thinking?

I wouldn't be surprised if we find evidence of advanced races originated from Earth or Mars in our own solar system. Are those considered aliens?

a reply to: Qumulys


Well if there used to be a larger planet between Mars and Jupiter that was destroyed in some freak interplanetary collision..

originally posted by: abeverage
I would love it were something utterly unknown!

But I am betting on something very unique, but to an alien hunter boring...

"Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of these spots is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice," said Chris Russell, who is the principal investigator on the mission.

Yes, that is the same guy who ventured on Cryovolcano/s. Ceres does have a water signature though, but at this time, if I have it right Ceres is almost at it's furthest from the Sun, so what do you think...forget about piggin' aliens for the time being, there are plenty of them here on Earth. First thing Spot one is an area, colder than it's surroundings, next will Dawn see any outgassing and if it does, for how long? Then what is the ambiguity of the spot one and five areas that can be seen pretty much beyond the terminator to some extent while having no obvious altitude, at least with what is given, and which makes no sense on the face of it? This could be a novel event alright, an illusion of light not considered before, ice mirrors even..that's why I would like to see all the contributors to the Dawn mission talking again.
To add, looking back at some posts, my God they are smug, while unconnected yerf, yerfs.

originally posted by: jaffo
Latest information from the orbiting satellite shows that there aren't just two "bright spots" but rather TONS of them! So while we were wrong, the mystery is still out there and gets even deeper than we thought initially!

Link: io9.com...

And further clarification from the source, JPL: www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Who's we? As far as I knew the astronomers and NASA didn't know and were waiting for more information.

So please enlighten me who is the "we" that was "wrong".

a reply to: Cauliflower

Hope you're not talking about my morning poo there!?

originally posted by: Ross 54
A reflective, and light-colored surface, like ice, should register as colder than its surroundings. It would reflect more and absorb less solar energy than dark surfaces; basic physics. We're told that the bright spots are, in fact, the same temperature as their darker surroundings.

interesting...

The pictures show that Ceres has many craters, but fewer large ones that scientists expected. Also, the temperatures of the two prominent bright spots vary: one is similar to the surrounding surface, while the other is cooler.

www.space.com...

Pools of mercury maybe?

It definitely has me perplexed.

To me, in order to reflect like that they have to be a flat, reflective surface, or a very bright white surface.

So my thinking is a pool of liquid. Water being pooled is highly unlikely, IMO. Plus ICE would be covered by dust, and minerals are not in flat smooth deposits.

Can't wait to find out what it is though!

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Ross 54
A reflective, and light-colored surface, like ice, should register as colder than its surroundings. It would reflect more and absorb less solar energy than dark surfaces; basic physics. We're told that the bright spots are, in fact, the same temperature as their darker surroundings.

interesting...

The pictures show that Ceres has many craters, but fewer large ones that scientists expected. Also, the temperatures of the two prominent bright spots vary: one is similar to the surrounding surface, while the other is cooler.

www.space.com...

But wouldnt that be the case with any reflective material?

I still think it's illumination and not reflection. Vulcanism would explain the difference in temperatures.

Sorry, I just don't trust NASA !

It could even be a new form of bioluminescent algae. Maybe one that expels salt as waste and sits on an exposed frozen patch of ice.

...could happen. Personally I would be happy to find algae, not in an alien base way...but still pretty happy.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Pools of mercury maybe?

It definitely has me perplexed.

To me, in order to reflect like that they have to be a flat, reflective surface, or a very bright white surface.

So my thinking is a pool of liquid. Water being pooled is highly unlikely, IMO. Plus ICE would be covered by dust, and minerals are not in flat smooth deposits.

Can't wait to find out what it is though!

That's the thing, except Mercury/Quicksilver is a pretty dense piece of kit, while generally Ceres isn't, and likened to a honeycomb, still that's the ways to go to dispel the idea of a highly reflective metal or not, say in a liquid state. On the other hand, Ceres is thought to have a rocky core, but then again, it's in the asteroid belt, albeit big for the 'hood' so there is not much around for all the pulling and stretching forces that make for friction.

originally posted by: raikata

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Ross 54
A reflective, and light-colored surface, like ice, should register as colder than its surroundings. It would reflect more and absorb less solar energy than dark surfaces; basic physics. We're told that the bright spots are, in fact, the same temperature as their darker surroundings.

interesting...

The pictures show that Ceres has many craters, but fewer large ones that scientists expected. Also, the temperatures of the two prominent bright spots vary: one is similar to the surrounding surface, while the other is cooler.

www.space.com...

But wouldnt that be the case with any reflective material?

Well the scientists involved don't seem to think so. Look at the language...

Ceres is puzzling astronomers with giant bright-white spots behaving very differently from each other in infrared light. As the enigma around the anomaly grows, NASA now says their origins and properties are very different.

gave off a completely different light.

This was “the biggest surprise”, according to Federico Tosi, who works on the Dawn Visible and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIR).

rt.com...

originally posted by: olaru12
I still think it's illumination and not reflection. Vulcanism would explain the difference in temperatures.

Sorry, I just don't trust NASA !

Really? Why? As Ceres rotated the object became brighter until it neared its terminus and then grew dark or dimmer which is pretty indicative of a reflection of our sun...

Ice ice baby

NASA has all the esoteric keys and I doubt they are puzzled about the reflections.

Water vapor signature was pretty weak.

Even Dry lake beds on Earth reflect shiny due to the fine nature of the salt deposition.

Fine dust would settle last in a thin water vapor atmosphere.

A science blogger (I'll try to find the link) who was invited recently to a seminar held by the probe research team was told by a member of this group that they discovered that the source of light was ABOVE the surface of Ceres because it became visible on the horizon at a point when it should have been hidden by the wall of the surrounding crater. This argues against reflection by surface ice and suggests that plumes of gas high above the surface are scattering the light. The trouble with both theories is that the luminous intensity of the spots didn't change as Ceres rotated. If this was ice or clouds of gas, the intensity should have varied as the angle of reflection varied, especially with sun off at the angle it is. But the intensity didn't change as Ceres rotated at least 75 degrees in the sequence. Nor did the shape of the lighted areas, which is what one expect if light is being scattered high up from gas coming from the interior of the asteroid and dissipating irregularly over the surface.

So no explanation due to surface effects is consistent with the light being visible on the horizon when the surface of the crater was hidden by its walls, whilst no explanation due to gas or smoke plumes above the surface is consistent with the constant shape of the lighted areas. It remains a mystery.

Anyone notice that one of the "bright spots" seems to stand up above the surface of Ceres and even cast a shadow? My eyes may be playing tricks on me but if you watch the lower left hand corner you'll see it appear. Here's a screepcap of what I'm talking about:



I can't tell if that's actually a shadow from the bright object or a shadow of a small crater behind it. Either way it definitely stands out.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: jaffo
Latest information from the orbiting satellite shows that there aren't just two "bright spots" but rather TONS of them! So while we were wrong, the mystery is still out there and gets even deeper than we thought initially!

Link: io9.com...

And further clarification from the source, JPL: www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Who's we? As far as I knew the astronomers and NASA didn't know and were waiting for more information.

So please enlighten me who is the "we" that was "wrong".

How about instead of being a killjoy you just enjoy the discussion? As to what we were wrong about, we were wrong about how many spots there are. That is pretty clear if you simply read the article. Thanks for playing.