Ceres!

[GaryN]

Hi mattwood, welcome to the forums!

I know that it would be foolish to jump the gun on what these bright spots are - and I wouldn't want (or expect) rampant speculation from the team - but if this phenom is electrical discharge, actual visual spark erosion taking place inside of a crater... and the orbiter images it in action... it would be an understatement to think this could be a big push forward for the EU theory..

Yes, could be jumping the gun, as we don't really know enough about what the camera is detecting, they don't provide info on what filters are in use, exposure times. As for discharges in action, I think this was a Clementine image of just inside a Lunar crater rim, and seems to show a distinct discharge, but seem to remember it was passed of as some kind of image anomaly.
http://www3.telus.net/myworld/discharge.png
If the images are in the near IR, then heat from a dark or glow mode discharge? Not sure about that, as I was informed the temperature of 825 nm ( one of the cameras filter centre wavelengths)IR would be way too hot, over 3000 C.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Ca ... tLaw.nu---.*--
But, in reading about some IR night vision devices, they use 900 nm to detect body heat of 97 C. I'm sure someone around here can remove my confusion.
For sure, exciting times for the EU if this all turns out to show phenomena the mainstream struggles to explain.

[mattwood]

Thank you for the welcome.

Quite a dramatic image. (http://www3.telus.net/myworld/discharge.png)
Can you provide any type of provenance for it?
I cannot seem to find it's original source on the net.

[willendure]

To this, a trend that I'm seeing between guesstimating any given celestial body's material composition lies in density readings. Ceres has been determined, like Comet 67P, to be very "light" in density. Whenever this light density reading is surmised the scientists default to water ice "mantles." This is where the entire "dirty snowball" idea keeps its place in science because no other conclusion is taken seriously. Listen to the above JPL press conference and this ethos appears throughout the testimony. What is revealed is that they think of Ceres in the same way they do about Rosetta/67P data (volatiles, water ice)--that Ceres is a rocky world with an "ice mantle." Sublimation is mentioned. It's as if they're talking about a comet. They also allude to these primordial objects as being the "building blocks" that created "Earth's oceans." So they are singing the same song every time.

How can something be ice but have a density far lower than ice does... it makes no sense. ARe they trying to say its not solid ice, but snow that is loosely packed?

A good place to go powder skiing? A sort of Mr. Whippy's ice cream world?

What is the estimated density of Ceres BTW, does anyone know?

[viscount aero]

To this, a trend that I'm seeing between guesstimating any given celestial body's material composition lies in density readings. Ceres has been determined, like Comet 67P, to be very "light" in density. Whenever this light density reading is surmised the scientists default to water ice "mantles." This is where the entire "dirty snowball" idea keeps its place in science because no other conclusion is taken seriously. Listen to the above JPL press conference and this ethos appears throughout the testimony. What is revealed is that they think of Ceres in the same way they do about Rosetta/67P data (volatiles, water ice)--that Ceres is a rocky world with an "ice mantle." Sublimation is mentioned. It's as if they're talking about a comet. They also allude to these primordial objects as being the "building blocks" that created "Earth's oceans." So they are singing the same song every time.

How can something be ice but have a density far lower than ice does... it makes no sense. ARe they trying to say its not solid ice, but snow that is loosely packed?

A good place to go powder skiing? A sort of Mr. Whippy's ice cream world?

What is the estimated density of Ceres BTW, does anyone know?

Also how can something "accrete" and "differentiate" with the heavier materials resting on top of the lighter materials?

[D_Archer]

What is the estimated density of Ceres BTW, does anyone know?

2 g/cm from Wiki, so not that dense but they do believe the core is mostly rock and then the mantle as icy material, the crust dusty/icy. Reality is probably rocky/dusty surface, rocky mantle, core unknown.

=== http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03938.html ===
The accretion of bodies in the asteroid belt was halted nearly 4.6 billion years ago by the gravitational influence of the newly formed giant planet Jupiter. The asteroid belt therefore preserves a record of both this earliest epoch of Solar System formation and variation of conditions within the solar nebula. Spectral features in reflected sunlight indicate that some asteroids have experienced sufficient thermal evolution to differentiate into layered structures1. The second most massive asteroid—4 Vesta—has differentiated to a crust, mantle and core2, 3. 1 Ceres, the largest and most massive asteroid, has in contrast been presumed to be homogeneous, in part because of its low density, low albedo and relatively featureless visible reflectance spectrum, similar to carbonaceous meteorites that have suffered minimal thermal processing4. Here we show that Ceres has a shape and smoothness indicative of a gravitationally relaxed object. Its shape is significantly less flattened than that expected for a homogeneous object, but is consistent with a central mass concentration indicative of differentiation. Possible interior configurations include water-ice-rich mantles over a rocky core.
===

Regards,
Daniel

[paladin17]

In mentioning "differentiation" in context of ice mantles, it goes unexplained how a lighter material, water and ice, would differentiate below regolith and rock, a heavier material. Differentiation would not do this. It would bring all of the lighter material to the top. The press conference is, at times, fraught with conflicting ideas mentioned in the same sentences. Watch the whole thing if you have time. See if you can catch these.

There are plausible models that consider the crust being sedimentary material, that fell on the surface during the later stages of the body's formation (or even some time after it happened). E.g. see this one.

In the last couple of weeks I've looked through, like, 200 articles that mention Ceres (to do a literature review for my thunderbolt-related blog and to mark the "ground zero" before the Dawn data would start coming). Only ~50 of them have relevant info on the topic, so I've paid more attention to them. In the end I think I have more or less clear picture of what the "icy mantle" model is (and what the EU-like rocky model can answer to it), so if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. I've already mentioned the major points here (yet I already see some additional points in favour of the EU model: the absence of the asteroid family, for example, may be due to the high porosity of the surface material, so there wouldn't be much ejecta; and this also accounts for a relatively low density).

[viscount aero]

In mentioning "differentiation" in context of ice mantles, it goes unexplained how a lighter material, water and ice, would differentiate below regolith and rock, a heavier material. Differentiation would not do this. It would bring all of the lighter material to the top. The press conference is, at times, fraught with conflicting ideas mentioned in the same sentences. Watch the whole thing if you have time. See if you can catch these.

There are plausible models that consider the crust being sedimentary material, that fell on the surface during the later stages of the body's formation (or even some time after it happened). E.g. see this one.

In the last couple of weeks I've looked through, like, 200 articles that mention Ceres (to do a literature review for my thunderbolt-related blog and to mark the "ground zero" before the Dawn data would start coming). Only ~50 of them have relevant info on the topic, so I've paid more attention to them. In the end I think I have more or less clear picture of what the "icy mantle" model is (and what the EU-like rocky model can answer to it), so if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. I've already mentioned the major points here (yet I already see some additional points in favour of the EU model: the absence of the asteroid family, for example, may be due to the high porosity of the surface material, so there wouldn't be much ejecta; and this also accounts for a relatively low density).

I understand where they surmise "ice mantles" as there is direct physical evidence for permafrost beneath the soil on Mars. Insofar as comets (asteroids) there is actually no evidence for it. They are trying coax evidence out of it however.

[GaryN]

Thank you for the welcome.

Quite a dramatic image. (http://www3.telus.net/myworld/discharge.png)
Can you provide any type of provenance for it?
I cannot seem to find it's original source on the net.

Er, I remember I grabbed a youtube frame, and cut out a section of the image What was the video? Don't remember, but maybe Moon anomalies or NASA hiding stuff? I'll have to see if I can find it again, but I think those kind of events likely occur regularly on the Moon, and if the asteroid belt is perhaps a torus/current ring then maybe such discharges occur there too?

@me

body heat of 97 C

Ooops. Seems like I started out in F and switched to C. Anyway, the IR cameras for hunting detect body temp, and they use 900 nm.

[Metryq]

I understand where they surmise "ice mantles" as there is direct physical evidence for permafrost beneath the soil on Mars. Insofar as comets (asteroids) there is actually no evidence for it. They are trying coax evidence out of it however.

How? By putting it in a chair in a darkened room, shining lights in its face and grilling it with questions?

[viscount aero]

I understand where they surmise "ice mantles" as there is direct physical evidence for permafrost beneath the soil on Mars. Insofar as comets (asteroids) there is actually no evidence for it. They are trying coax evidence out of it however.

How? By putting it in a chair in a darkened room, shining lights in its face and grilling it with questions?

[willendure]

Also how can something "accrete" and "differentiate" with the heavier materials resting on top of the lighter materials?

As I understand it... You have some ice (or maybe something more like snow) and it is mixed with an amount of dust. The ice erodes away into space by sublimation, leaving a dark crust of heavier material behind, on top of lighter ice underneath. But that would be differentiated layers by sublimation, not accretion.

[viscount aero]

Also how can something "accrete" and "differentiate" with the heavier materials resting on top of the lighter materials?

As I understand it... You have some ice (or maybe something more like snow) and it is mixed with an amount of dust. The ice erodes away into space by sublimation, leaving a dark crust of heavier material behind, on top of lighter ice underneath. But that would be differentiated layers by sublimation, not accretion.

Yes that distinction is a good observation. Clearly dirt and dust can coat ice. It happens on Earth. Over time the dirt can become quite thick. This is permafrost. But is this happening on comets or Ceres?

It seems there is always an exception that looms large to threaten a theory in astronomy. Take, for example, Enceladus: It has no atmosphere to protect it. Yet it's fully enshrouded in ice. Its icy exterior should have been vaporized by now, all sublimated to space a long time ago. But it hasn't. It seems continually replenished or fresh. How? Why is it not a barren rock by now? Why is it not covered in dirt and dust?

Same with Europa. Its icy shell and ocean should all have sublimated away, leaving bare rock. But it's intact. Radiation hasn't vaporized it. And it seems to have no regolith surface.

[willendure]

There are conflicting hypothesis around the hexagonal craters too:

Impact craters are generally bowl shaped. Hexagonal ones are generally much flatter.

I have read that hexagonal craters are found on harder surfaces, never softer ones. The idea is that the crater does not end up like a bowl shaped impact crater, but instead a much flatter crater, due to the much harder surface being impacted. Supposedly the straight edged rims form where there are fault lines in the surface...

On the other hand, the hypothesis for Ceres is that it is ice under the surface. Initially a bowl shaped impact is formed, but over time the ice melts and re-freezes (perhaps under hydrostatic pressure, that is, it tries to move back up to the previous level of the 'water table'). Hence the flat craters we see, but no explanation of how that process would result in hexagon shapes. Also contradicts the hard surfaces hypothesis, as this time its due to a softer icy surface.

[viscount aero]

There are conflicting hypothesis around the hexagonal craters too:

Impact craters are generally bowl shaped. Hexagonal ones are generally much flatter.

I have read that hexagonal craters are found on harder surfaces, never softer ones. The idea is that the crater does not end up like a bowl shaped impact crater, but instead a much flatter crater, due to the much harder surface being impacted. Supposedly the straight edged rims form where there are fault lines in the surface...

Yes this is even more far-fetched and mysterious than possible permafrost on other celestial bodies. At least there is evidence for permafrost on other worlds. But the establishment's hexagonal cratering theory is simply not believable for any reason. The theory is so false that it is not even false.

On the other hand, the hypothesis for Ceres is that it is ice under the surface. Initially a bowl shaped impact is formed, but over time the ice melts and re-freezes (perhaps under hydrostatic pressure, that is, it tries to move back up to the previous level of the 'water table'). Hence the flat craters we see, but no explanation of how that process would result in hexagon shapes. Also contradicts the hard surfaces hypothesis, as this time its due to a softer icy surface.

Yeah that is false. That component of the theory is so reaching and overly complicated. Too many far-fetched but highly specific things must take place for that theory to even begin to be believed.

[willendure]

On the other hand, the hypothesis for Ceres is that it is ice under the surface. Initially a bowl shaped impact is formed, but over time the ice melts and re-freezes (perhaps under hydrostatic pressure, that is, it tries to move back up to the previous level of the 'water table'). Hence the flat craters we see, but no explanation of how that process would result in hexagon shapes. Also contradicts the hard surfaces hypothesis, as this time its due to a softer icy surface.

Yeah that is false. That component of the theory is so reaching and overly complicated. Too many far-fetched but highly specific things must take place for that theory to even begin to be believed.

The flattening over time part is not too unreasonable. Find an ice cube in your freezer and position it so it is sitting on top of the metal grating of one of the shelves. Over time it will sink down, and the metal wires will cut into it as it flows around them. It could also be argued that a glacier is like a very slow moving river, but it does indeed flow when looked at over a longer time scale.

But... doesn't provide any explanation of the hexagons, and doesn't provide any explanation of the central peaks.

Man, I'm intrigued. Isn't Dawn arriving into orbit some time today? No doubt the first high-res images will be posted up here as soon as.