Thank you, Geckzilla , for representing my concern regarding a steadfast sticking to the 9% number at a time when the reports are that scientists are surprised by the light spots and light areas on Ceres. And thank you so much for passing on the information from Chris Russell regarding a possible 0.4 albedo for the bright white spot on Ceres. I receive your caution that it is a casual report, not a formally published - and there fore reliable - report.
Nitpicker, thank you for explaining why you had the confidence about the 9% number. I am properly chastened for trying to report results from a dataset that I did not understand as I should have.
I hope that someday I can convince you that my lack of understanding about albedo measurements and datasets does not translate to a lack of understanding about mass, space, time, physics and planet formation.
I think this comment of yours is particularly relevant to our conversation:
Nitpicker wrote:
It should also be noted that there are quite a few different kinds of albedo measurements and they are all frequently mixed up and bandied about by amateur enthusiasts, making the numbers somewhat rubbery. Not to mention that variable albedo measurements are all dependent on resolution in one way or another. I am sure the figures I've quoted for variation of albedo on the Moon, are not based on the best photographic resolution currently possible. I'd bet there are small patches/pebbles/grains on the surface of the Moon, that reflect light with a much higher albedo than the quoted maximum of 0.183.
This comment, on the other hand, seems a little out of place:
Nitpicker wrote:Yes, but we were right to stick with that conclusion, rather than speculate over a handful of new, higher resolution images from Dawn, with hardly any published technical details. Once technical details of the newest images become available publicly, the situation will be different.
C'mon, Nitpicker, you wouldn't publish a paper on results from a new constrast-enhanced image, but isn't the purpose of this thread to conjecture on the new, higher-resolution images from Dawn, given the new unexpected results? (And if there was not an interest in finding a new explanation for unexpected results, I would not have jumped in with my explanation from Mass Vortex Theory.)
Given your commitment to Standard Theory (the current status quo consensus), please explain why you say the following:
Nitpicker wrote:It would not be a great surprise to find ice of some form and in some proportion, weathered to some degree, on the surface of Ceres. It is entirely expected.
I thought that planets and asteroids were supposedly formed from rocky material in orbit around the newly formed sun colliding, generating heat, separating into layers, and then gradually cooling down. An ice layer has never been part of the Standard-Theory explanation for planet, or dwarf-planet formation that I have seen (I freely admit that I am not as acquainted with the literature as you are). We have some observations about ice layers on some moons, but I have not seen a Standard-Theory explanation for this observed feature.
With Ceres, you have the problem of an ice layer plus another layer of rocky debris on top. You say that the ice could be "weathered to some degree," but space weather does not account for rocky material distributed over the whole surface. As far as I know, space weather has to do with high speed ions and electrons discharged by the sun; space weather is monitored by ground-based magnetometers and magnetic observatories. So, space weather involves electromagnetic forces and charged particles, not rocky stuff.
Please explain why an ice layer with a dusting of rocky material fits within the explanation of Standard Theory. [I think other readers may be interested in this also.]
Thank you, Geckzilla , for representing my concern regarding a steadfast sticking to the 9% number at a time when the reports are that scientists are surprised by the light spots and light areas on Ceres. And thank you so much for passing on the information from Chris Russell regarding a possible 0.4 albedo for the bright white spot on Ceres. I receive your caution that it is a casual report, not a formally published - and there fore reliable - report.
Nitpicker, thank you for explaining why you had the confidence about the 9% number. I am properly chastened for trying to report results from a dataset that I did not understand as I should have. :oops: I hope that someday I can convince you that my lack of understanding about albedo measurements and datasets does not translate to a lack of understanding about mass, space, time, physics and planet formation.
I think this comment of yours is particularly relevant to our conversation:
[quote="Nitpicker"]
It should also be noted that there are quite a few different kinds of albedo measurements and they are all frequently mixed up and bandied about by amateur enthusiasts, making the numbers somewhat rubbery. Not to mention that variable albedo measurements are all dependent on resolution in one way or another. I am sure the figures I've quoted for variation of albedo on the Moon, are not based on the best photographic resolution currently possible. I'd bet there are small patches/pebbles/grains on the surface of the Moon, that reflect light with a much higher albedo than the quoted maximum of 0.183.[/quote]
This comment, on the other hand, seems a little out of place:
[quote="Nitpicker"]Yes, but we were right to stick with that conclusion, rather than speculate over a handful of new, higher resolution images from Dawn, with hardly any published technical details. Once technical details of the newest images become available publicly, the situation will be different.[/quote]
C'mon, Nitpicker, you wouldn't publish a paper on results from a new constrast-enhanced image, but isn't the purpose of this thread to conjecture on the new, higher-resolution images from Dawn, given the new unexpected results? (And if there was not an interest in finding a new explanation for unexpected results, I would not have jumped in with my explanation from Mass Vortex Theory.)
Given your commitment to Standard Theory (the current status quo consensus), please explain why you say the following:
[quote="Nitpicker"]It would not be a great surprise to find ice of some form and in some proportion, weathered to some degree, on the surface of Ceres. It is entirely expected.[/quote]
I thought that planets and asteroids were supposedly formed from rocky material in orbit around the newly formed sun colliding, generating heat, separating into layers, and then gradually cooling down. An ice layer has never been part of the Standard-Theory explanation for planet, or dwarf-planet formation that I have seen (I freely admit that I am not as acquainted with the literature as you are). We have some observations about ice layers on some moons, but I have not seen a Standard-Theory explanation for this observed feature.
With Ceres, you have the problem of an ice layer plus another layer of rocky debris on top. You say that the ice could be "weathered to some degree," but space weather does not account for rocky material distributed over the whole surface. As far as I know, space weather has to do with high speed ions and electrons discharged by the sun; space weather is monitored by ground-based magnetometers and magnetic observatories. So, space weather involves electromagnetic forces and charged particles, not rocky stuff.
Please explain why an ice layer with a dusting of rocky material fits within the explanation of Standard Theory. [I think other readers may be interested in this also.]