>oh you're wondering about those bright spots that are

bump test

>>7723254
Holy shit bumping does work in this thread, did m00k implement new anti-bump-features for some threads or something?

>>7723255

The OP can't bump their own thread. Thanks for bumping though.

>>7723267
Except I'm not the OP. Also, there is this other thread which I did not start which is not over bump limit which I couldn't bump. See >>7720938

>>7723273

I never implied that you were, just pointing out the rule.

File: 1449708145226.jpg (184KB, 1713x667px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1713x667px

>>7723249
Ayy lmao?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHxGQjirV-c

Ayy lmao.

>>7723267

OP can bump but you have to wait a while

the Ceres bright spots are interesting. God knows..

>>7723249
You have proof its ayy lmaos?

File: backinmyday-tinfoil.jpg (47KB, 400x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x480px

>>7723249
>put on your tinfoil hat
foil is made of aluminum now, Grandpa

It's been quite a few months since they showed us an actual raw photograph of the region. The demarcation was about the time when they went from being fairly certain it was ice and the spectral reading didn't actually support either ice or salt. Since then we've only had a couple of doctored images and some handwaves that the feature is but one of hundreds of brightspots on Ceres. A disingenuous and patronising assessment of the feature, and frankly a nice salve for any cognitive dissonance. It totally smacks of nothing more to see here move along.

>>7723559

Sick gainz, natty as fuck!

>>7723616
Yeah just when you start really believing that something is going on they will release all of their weird doctored data which 'proves it was just an ordinary rock deposit' and everyone will go back to shining their billiards.

File: NASAPIA19579cropspots.jpg (6KB, 259x243px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x243px

4400KM

File: Occator_crater.jpg (18KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x320px

>>7723629

Exposed 4400KM

File: Occator_PIA19889.jpg (75KB, 800x761px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x761px

>>7723635

1450KM the only photo released, admitted to be a doctored composite.

File: PIA20180-Ceres-OccatorCrater-FalseColors-20151209.jpg (175KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1280x720px

False colour projection implied from LAMO, with accompanying popsci cries of:

>Astronomers have finally solved the mystery of those weird bright spots on Ceres
>Not aliens.

Reading the actual Nature article shows no such certainty. The synopsis outlines a reasonable theory:

>Occator that exhibits probable sublimation of water ice, producing haze clouds inside the crater that appear and disappear with a diurnal rhythm. Slow-moving condensed-ice or dust particles may explain this haze.

Although reading the actual paper has no data it is just a best guess because what else could it be but salt or water? Let's just ignore the spectroscopic reading which contraindicates this theory.

>>7723664

The actual blurb from the Nature paper:

>Spectral analysis. We examined the as-measured bright spot spectra and the same spectra after subtraction of the average Ceres spectrum. After subtraction, the bright spot spectra retained their respective red and blue slopes, as well as differences in slope and ‘kinks’ in the spectra. We compared the salient spec-tral characteristics to a suite of plausible geological analogues (magnesium sul-fates, magnesium carbonates, halide, water ice, hydroxides and clay minerals). Reflectance spectra from RELAB (http://www.planetary.brown.edu/relabdata/) and HOSERLab (http://psf.uwinnipeg.ca/FACILITIES/; http://psf.uwinnipeg.ca/Sample_Database/) and ref. 33 were convolved to FC band passes by averaging reflectance values in the laboratory spectra over the FC band passes34.The best matches to the Ceres bright spot spectra in terms of similar spectral shapes and presence of slope changes and kinks longward of 0.555 μ m were used to generate areal mixtures involving the average Ceres spectrum. We assumed that this spectrum would be representative of the surrounding ‘uncontaminated’ materials. In the absence of optical constants for most of these materials, we chose to construct simple mathematical areal mixtures of the average Ceres spectrum with the best end member, matching the spectra at the 0.653 μ m FC band pass and weighting each spectrum by an abundance factor. Although mathematical areal mixtures are not ideally representative of how the bright materials are present on Ceres, they do provide a lower limit on the abundance of the bright materials, as bright materials are darkened by opaque phases (such as average Ceres) more in intimate versus areal mixtures. In our spectral comparisons, we focused on using fine-grained (<45 μ m) reflectance spectra of bright materials and used only binary mixtures.

A bit of smoke blowing.

>>7723706

>The absolute reflectance of the small-scale Occator bright spots coupled with the Herschel observatory’s water vapour detection4 suggests three possible candidate materials: water ice; iron-depleted clay minerals; and salts.We conducted an extensive analysis of potential analogue materials. Of all materials considered, the centre of the brightest spot in Occator matches best with hexahydrite (six-hydrated magnesium sulfate, Fig. 3b). It is less consistent with other plausible minerals like smectites, although additional components that are spectrally featureless in this wavelength range, such as water ice, may also be present. Because of the detection of haze in the vicinity of the brightest spots (see below), a volatile component must be involved, which is likely to be water, as Herschel observations suggest4. With increasing distance from the centre of the Occator pit, the spectra become similar to those of the less bright spots on the surface, shifting the wavelength of maximum reflec-tivity from 0.65 μm to 0.55 μm, and increasing the negative spectral slope on the long-wavelength side of 0.55 μ m. This spectral behaviour can be explained by a decreasing contribution from the brightest mat-erials, and a possible change in their composition—to a less hydrated magnesium sulfate (kieserite, a mono-hydrated magnesium sulfate; Fig. 3c). Because of the lack of diagnostic spectral features in many candidate minerals, we stress that we cannot rule out other materials or processes, such as localized heating in contact with an ice-rich sub-surface material that leads also to the formation of an iron-poor clay mineral, similar to processes on Mars

>>7723725

Some interesting language in that writeup, notably this:

>Of all materials considered, the centre of the brightest spot in Occator matches best with hexahydrite (six-hydrated magnesium sulfate, Fig. 3b). It is less consistent with other plausible minerals like smectites, although additional components that are spectrally featureless in this wavelength range, such as water ice, may also be present.

So their analysis consists of first assuming a set of "plausible minerals" then fudging the data to match the assumption of the nearest plausible spectral match. This is implied by using only a subset spectrum and saying that there "may" be other components.

This is pure kool-aid and not science.

>>7723249
>so bright you can see them from Earth?
What? Ceres itself isn't bright enough to be seen with the naked eye from Earth. They only showed up on HST pictures.

>>7723828

Who said naked eye? Is the HST not located at Earth?

>>7723841
We aren't the HST.

>>7723926

You fucking faggot cunt.

>>7723267
OP can bump every 10 minutes

>>7723725

Not a very compelling case.

>>7724218

It's a mystery to me why someone would go to the length of creating a scene like this

>>7723249
>>7723616
>>7723627
>>7723638
>"doctored"

All images from any space probe are processed. In fact, the pictures you take with any digital camera are also processed. That's how you get "what it looks like to a human" from the data it gathers.

>>7724265
>That's how you get "what it looks like to a human" from the data it gathers.

Time to pay this dwarf planet a visit then.

>>7724296
>Time to pay this dwarf planet a visit then.

Huh?

>>7723730
>their analysis consists of first assuming a set of "plausible minerals" then fudging the data to match the assumption of the nearest plausible spectral match
Science is dogmatic these days, No longer do we take data on face value we instead force it to match our current theories. Dark matter is a good example. Clearly a massive hole in the theory but instead of trashing the theory we fudge it with some new exotic impossible to ever see matter.

File: Ceres You Dumbfuck.jpg (84KB, 792x557px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 792x557px

>>7724308

>Huh?
>>7723638

>>7724265

The ceres occator photo from HAMO is a contrast manipulated composite, with the bright features taken at a different exposure and overlaid. They never released the raw photos. This is the ONLY photo of Ceres to get such treatment, everything else is verbatim.

Now LAMO is released only as a false colour projection. Nice weasel words though.

>>7724313

That's the higher orbit photo, already posted upthread. Why don't you read?

>>7723730
>So their analysis consists of first assuming a set of "plausible minerals" then fudging the data to match the assumption of the nearest plausible spectral match.

You want them to start with implausible minerals and avoid possibilities near the data?

>>7725667

I did, you degenerate human being. I was merely responding to anon's one note post.

File: ceres2.png (45KB, 658x642px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 658x642px

>>7725739

>>7725697

How about if the data doesn't match the inital set of possibilities, extend the set rather than massage the data?

File: 1295766414529.jpg (44KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1024x1024px

>spectral analysis strongly implies its salt
>NOOOOOOO MUH AYY LMAOS!!!

>>7725661
Wait, you are crying about 'weasel words' while doing the same?

>>7726300

Solid argument there.

>>7725715
>I did, you degenerate human being.
kek, like an autist that learned to insult people by observing /pol/ but hasn't worked out the finer points yet.

>>7723249
>>7723627
>>7723706
>>7723725
>>7723730
>>7724218
>>7725661
>>7726367

>muh conspiracy!
What's like being mentally dysfunctional?

How far across is this thing?

>>7728382

Quality discourse friend.

Its fucking volcano idiots. Get over it already.

>>7729762

>implying a source of energy

Sure is science around here.

>>7729921
Yeah. It's a light source that doesn't require an energy input. Sounds much more like science now.

>>7729925

No more or less handwavy than any theory. Either explain the mechanism or fuck off cunt. BTW I don't see anyone implying it's aliens or a light source or whatever, just that the popsci handwave doesn't meet scrutiny.

>>7729945
its a volcano retard. its a natural light source without any ayylmaos

File: nasa shills will defend this.png (81KB, 471x747px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 471x747px

It's a model Baltimore circa 1925
There is no other explanation
>inb4 nasa crisis actor misdirection

>>7724218
ayy lmao

>>7729972

Oh wow you actually believe that it's glowing magma? Please leave the gene pool.

>>7729925
>It's a light source

It's not...

File: koolaid-good.png (108KB, 294x294px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 294x294px

>>7729762

>muh cognitive dissonance

>>7724310
Please shut the fuck up. That data "at face value" is a set of fluxes. "At face value" it tells you absolutely nothing. You cannot conclude anything from a spectrum without fitting it.

>Clearly a massive hole in the theory but instead of crying about it hypotheses were proposed and tested, dark matter is winning so far.

Science. You don't understand it.

Where's your evidence that they are ayyy lmao OP?
Even if the images are doctored (they aren't) and it isn't salt (it is), what gives you the confidence to assert that an unknown glow must be ayyy lmao?

>>7729762
It fades out into the night side, it isn't self-luminous.

>>7730102

You know, I've yet to see dark side images of occator crater. Just saying...

>>7730101

Who said that it was ayylmao? The image is clearly doctored, where's the raw image? There is still way too much ambiguity to say that it's salt. The Nature paper at best says it may possibly be salt.

>>7723730
>then fudging the data to match the assumption of the nearest plausible spectral match. This is implied by using only a subset spectrum and saying that there "may" be other components.
You're retarded. If the other compounds are featureless then they weren't "fudging them", as it wouldn't fit the data any better. In reality you are talking out your ass. Fitting a spectrum based on a model is not in any way fudging the data.

You cannot build a spectrograph which and an infinite spectral coverage.

File: Ceres-Tom-Ruen-montage-May-11.jpg (109KB, 1092x728px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1092x728px

>>7730114

>>7730122


That's not a dark side image.

>>7730120

>name calling
>nonsensical brainfart

Quality post.

>>7730151
>Dismiss post as nonsensical.
>Pretend this is a reply.

Unlike you I actually have experience in this field.

>>7730145
It's past the terminator in the first frame.

>>7730295

A poor shot. Dawn orbits, let's see the dark side shots.

>>7730120

So are you actually implying that Dawn's spectrograph doesn't have range for water ice? They choose to ignore that data for some reason, as explictly stated in the Nature article.

>>7730338
Limited bandwidth, why would you take dark side images?

>>7730354

Dark side photos to check for atmosphere.

>>7730342
No. What I'm saying is all spectra are over "subranges". There are other reasons too such as instrumental problems and other data being proprietary.

They are using optical data as you can see, there are no water ice feature in it. They're using the visible arm of VIR. Just because Dawn and in fact VIR has an infrared arm does not mean the science team had the right to publish it, or that the data was in a state to be published.

>>7730373
In which case you take occultation or limb spectra not images.

>>7730377

Yet the popsci crows that the dilemma is solved.

>>7730377
>>7730378

Nice try at jargonese.

>>7730377
My mistake they're not actually even using VIR, they're using the framing camera. So yes, this is literally the full range of that instrument. So it's not a subrange. If you want the infrared you'll have to wait for the actual spectroscopy from the VIR instrument team.

This is poor-man's spectroscopy because they're clearly trying to beat the other instrument team and get published in Nature.

This is also the reason it's ambiguous because it's not spectroscopy, it's SED fitting. They have spectral resolutions of ~10.

>>7730383
>Nice try at jargonese.
Those are basic terms. Playing stupid isn't a reply.

>>7730383
>Yet the popsci crows that the dilemma is solved.
>Newsflash: Paper Misrepresented.
Such is the nature of Nature.

>>7730384

The data they have doesn't even agree with what they have stated, it's best guess at most.

>>7730095

>do not question we are science

How does this feature work, what drives it? Why so localized in this one spot? The Nature article is a handwave which only an ignoramus would buy at face value.

>>7730399
How does the data not agree?

File: ceres dark.gif (431KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1024x1024px

>>7730378

What exactly are you arguing? It's a fact that Dawn takes dark side images and sends them back, we just don't get to see most of them, most definitely none of Occator.

>>7730408
That is early imagery before the science orbit. It was only taken in a few short windows. Show me some dark site images from the science orbit.

>>7730384

They have VIR readings, they ignore that data because it doesn't match their expectations.

>>7730418

They don't release them.

>>7730403
That's not what I said, at all. Don't even try to pretend.

>How does this feature work, what drives it? Why so localized in this one spot?
Two key points someone so dense as yourself may have missed. First it's a Nature paper, it has to be short, very short. Secondly it is an observational paper, questions like this are simply outwith the scope of the paper. The point of the paper is to analyse broadband colours, not to flesh these proposals out.

It is not a Handwave. If you read the article (not the news article), it does not even claim to solve it.

>>7730424
So how do you know they take them?

>>7730419
Where specifically does it say that?

Well I guess we can say that the Nature paper is a rough guess based on incomplete data, hardly the "finally solved the mystery of those weird bright spots on Ceres" of popsci. Unfortunately how much more study is going to go into it? Everyone thinks the science is a done deal when that's far from true. This feature is unlike any other seen in the solar system, which is a direct quote from the mission scientists, why so dismissive of it?

>>7730462
They're not being dismissive of it. Read the paper. The real data is still to come.

>>7730488

The popsci is very dismissive and the Nature article hardly implies ongoing research.

>>7724218
Severe case of marijuana overdose after each of them injected 5 doses.