Stunning close view of Mercury

Well, I researched my question. According to Wikipedia,

Although the daylight temperature at the surface of Mercury is generally extremely high, observations strongly suggest that ice exists on Mercury. The floors of deep craters at the poles are never exposed to direct sunlight, and temperatures there remain below 102 K; far lower than the global average.[53] Water ice strongly reflects radar, and observations by the 70 m Goldstone telescope and the VLA in the early 1990s revealed that there are patches of very high radar reflection near the poles.[54] While ice is not the only possible cause of these reflective regions, astronomers believe it is the most likely

reply to post by Enlightenme1111


I made a post near the top describing how I think those center peaks in a crater are sometimes formed. Look at this.


See how after the impact of the drop is over, the displacement of the water rushes back in to fill the impact point. If this is a meteor going at 10's of thousands of km/h, AND hits perfectly perpendicular to the surface (and is the right size), I believe this is how center impact peaks are created. The soil/rock literally under the immense force acts like water.
Except unlike water, the peak remains, most probably in a state of super compacted molten rock, hardening then forming a mountainous peak.


Also, the no stars thing.... *sigh*... again???
See my avatar, thats a picture I took where the exposure was somewhere around 5 minutes. Its all to do with exposure time. Search into the basics of photography and the answers you seek will become clear

reply to post by alfa1


The best time to image stars and the moon in the same exposure is wait for the moon to be in a thin crescent phase. you will overexpose the lit part, see the entirety of the rest of the lunar disk, and if brighter stars are in your field of view, you will image them. Unless you have a star tracker they will be streaks.

I believe if you know where the new moon is you can image it with a long enough exposure from earthshine, (reflected sunlight off of earth dimly illuminating the moon).

This is a article I thought was interesting .. peace
Oct 31, 2011

Data from the MESSENGER probe to Mercury continues to provide evidence for the Electric Universe theory.

The planet Mercury has no atmosphere and little in the way of a magnetic field, so it is bombarded by the full force of the Sun’s radiation. Since the Moon is also an airless world, with only traces of a magnetic field, perhaps explanations applicable to the Moon or Mars might help to explain Mercury’s features. www.thunderbolts.info...

reply to post by W3RLIED2


sometimes I think the tagline for this site should be "Deny Obviousness"

reply to post by Qumulys


Fantastic analysis! It's hard sometimes to think of time in certain frame of refrences.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

I never said anything about Messenger not being a Mercury mission. It could be Mercury it really doesn't matter it is inhabitable. Waste of money just to take a photo that looks similar to the Moon.

Yeah! No crap, huh? They could just put another picture of the moon in our children's schoolbooks and just label it "murcury", and save a #ton of money!! Who cares if they even spell it right?? Them # for brains kids, with their heads stuck in that danged ol FacePage, sure wouldn't notice! its easier to spell it with only one vowel used anyway! Then our kids could get that one memorized faster and move on to the next thing to learn, so then we could save even more money!

...just you and me, KonquestAby... The rest of the world has got their heads screwed on backwards!

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by camouflaged

 

This is the sort of conversation one expects to have with first graders. This is my response to someone talking about still not being able to see stars from the moon even if they turn away from the sun. Hope this helps.

Hey Q, you appear to be a very good first grader yourself.

Exposure time?

Well, firstly we see only partially stars on earth, because of the sunlight. The sun lights up the atmosphere, which blocks the starlight. During night, we see stars ... and the moon, does not have atmosphere that lights up, so being on the moon is equivalent to being on earth during night time. Light being a waveform, a stream of light form the sun does not "block" starlight ... it does so on earth, because it LIGHTS up the atmosphere.

So, the "moon" explanation is acceptable for succeptable first graders ... when you advance to second grade, you should have learned to be a "sceptic". That should be your FIRST lesson. Because without "SCEPTISISM", you are a poor escuse for a scientist.

So there is full reason to be "sceptic" about the moon pictures, and with this one as well.

Mercury looks suprisingly smooth, (relatively speaking) I expected it to be more wrinkly with the eternal extremes of heating and chilling. There's no sign of those pesky Mercurians though.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by camouflaged

 

This is the sort of conversation one expects to have with first graders. This is my response to someone talking about still not being able to see stars from the moon even if they turn away from the sun. Hope this helps.

Hey Q, you appear to be a very good first grader yourself.

Exposure time?

Well, firstly we see only partially stars on earth, because of the sunlight. The sun lights up the atmosphere, which blocks the starlight. During night, we see stars ... and the moon, does not have atmosphere that lights up, so being on the moon is equivalent to being on earth during night time. Light being a waveform, a stream of light form the sun does not "block" starlight ... it does so on earth, because it LIGHTS up the atmosphere.

So, the "moon" explanation is acceptable for succeptable first graders ... when you advance to second grade, you should have learned to be a "sceptic". That should be your FIRST lesson. Because without "SCEPTISISM", you are a poor escuse for a scientist.

So there is full reason to be "sceptic" about the moon pictures, and with this one as well.

You seriously need to go back to school, or read more.

Our Atmosphere does not "block" light in the way you are thinking. It takes sun light and "scatters" the blue frequency.
During the day time on our planet, there is a very large amount of this scatter. Step outside before the sun rises on a clear day and watch. As the sun comes up, you'll see the sky turn more and more "blue"

This blue light is not blocking the star's light. It is STARTING TO OVERWHELM your eye sight! Your Eye can not take an "exposure" longer than 1/5 seconds, and when things get brighter, your pupils will automatically contract, letting less and less light in.

Every had an eye exam? Where they put the drops in to dilate your pupils? Ever wonder why you have to wear those dark glasses afterwards until the drops wear off? Your vision will be extremely blurry and over bright. This will give you one heck of a head ache.

So again, the sun light in our air is scattering blue light, and that in turn causes our pupils to contract.
Okay, so take out a camera and use it. Over expose your film, that will catch the stars, right?
Wrong. It will saturate the film and or CCD chip. You'll get nothing except a very bright picture of mostly white light.

You are right. The moon has no air. But it does have something that Earth also has:

Diffuse Reflection.

When light hits a non-metallic surface, it will cause this light to bounce and scatter (it is what we in the CGI biz calle Diffused Lighting). You don't have any air, but you are standing on a large surface that is reflecting back a LOT of light, and on top of that, it's causing that reflective light to be scattered.

That scattered light will then enter your eye balls or camera lens. The intensity of it is still more than bright enough to make your pupils contract, or saturate your camera.

Here's another experiment: go outside in the snow. Walk around with NO dark glasses on in an area covered with lots and lots of snow. Do it long enough and you'll become "Snow Blind" (and I ain't talking about the stuff you need a straw for). You could walk around looking up in the air.....but it's kind of hard to walk around that way.

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)#Diffuse_reflection

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by bjarneorn


The eye doctor eye drops is a good example, here's one you can do yourself.

From a very bright sunny boardwalk on a beech, enter into a very dimly lit bar with no windows, and see how long it will take your eyes to adjust to see the hot babe in a dark corner.

Now once your eyes are adjusted to the dim light, walk back outside and see how fast you see the light. Now after your pupils re-dilate, from the boardwalk look back into that bar through the door and see if you can see that hot babe from outside.

If you're on the moon and you can see the sun, it is daytime, if you cant, it is night time. If its day your eyes are dilated due to the reflective scattered light off of the lunar surface, turning away from the sun wont change that, and neither will an atmosphere. What an atmosphere does is scatter and reflect sunlight to turn the black sky into a brighter color, usually blue. Its just much brighter on earth in the day than the moon.

If in the day on the moon you find a shadow area to allow your pupils to contract looking at the sky with no lunar surface in your field of view, then stars in the sky will emerge, but like the beach bar, it takes a bit of time. Nobody said you cant see stars in the sky on the moon during a lunar day, but you have to make an effort to do so, which is directly linked to atmosphere.

If it really is Mercury, then wow! Absolutely stunning.

I'm still waiting for some photos of the moon that are in color as opposed to black and white.

Originally posted by an0maly33
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

sometimes I think the tagline for this site should be "Deny Obviousness"

Agreed

It's comedic sometimes.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Hey Q, you appear to be a very good first grader yourself.

Were you directing that to me? If so, I LOVED the first grade!!!

eriktheawful and Illustronic have added some really good comments that may help your research. Me, myself, am terrible at research, even though I love to read, I tend to have to re-read pages over and over and it doesn't sink in very well. But, put something physical in front of me or in my hands, and to me its a completely different way of learning! Things make much more sense! So, grab a SLR camera and go out shooting!

If only the lecturer at my uni explained relativity in a pantomime form, I'd be the next Sagan by now!

Thanks for posting, I was alwyas interested in astonomy.

Thanks for posting, I was alwyas interested in astonomy.

My favorite theory pertaining to peaks in craters also explains crater chains, which are also visible in the images. This theory is "Electronic discharge vortex vaporization", yeah! Go physics!

reply to post by Illustronic


Not to sure about that line in regard to the Moon,

"which is directly linked to atmosphere" I agree with the rest.

Mercury looks like moon. It isn't red because its near to Sun and there isn't oxygen to make iron rust, what are some of you guys thinking? Mercury has very thin atmosphere, so its night side can't keep heat, so its freezing there. Sun has boiled most of Mercury's atmosphere away.

So Mercury should look like Moon, they are similar. Both are just chunks of rock.

reply to post by smurfy


All that directly linked to atmosphere reference is just the reason the sky on the moon during a lunar day is black, that's all.