Jump to content

Object Near Mercury


Recommended Posts

I think the official explanation has the most merit. Especially since it is from the same group of scientists who took the footage in the first place.

 

Head NRL group scientist Russ Howard and lead ground systems engineer Nathan Rich say the mysterious object is in fact Mercury itself. And what we're seeing in the footage is the equivalent of Mercury's wake, "where the planet was on the previous day," as it travels through the solar system on its natural gravitational path:

To make the relatively faint glow of a coronal mass ejection stand out against the bright glare of spacecaused by interplanetary dust and the stellar/galactic backgroundthe NRL scientists must remove as much background light as possible. They explained that they determine what light is background light, and thus can be subtracted out, by calculating the average amount of light that entered each camera pixel on the day of the CME event and on the previous day. Light appearing in the pixels on both days is considered to be background light and is removed from the footage of the CME. The remaining light is then enhanced.

 

The analysts say the practice works even better when applied to far-off objects such as stars, which don't move much relative to the sun. But for moving objects, especially planets, the process is a little more complicated. And making matters even trickier is Mercury's staus as the closest planet to the sun.

 

"When [this averaging process] is done between the previous day and the current day and there is a feature like a planet, this introduces dark (negative) artifacts in the background where the planet was on the previous day, which then show up as bright areas in the enhanced image," Rich explained in an email.

 

I've created video surveillance software for Cyberview Systems Inc. that also does background subtraction to process object recognition and tracking. Even though the software performed background subtraction on a frame by frame basis at 30 fps, the artifacts mentioned by the article you posted are still part of this process. The techniques used to perform this type of image / video analysis must account for these type of artifacts to successfully identify and track objects regardless of the overall lighting within the scene.

 

I used Intel's performance primitives along with OpenCV to create the software. You can read up on this type of image / video processing at the following links:

 

http://www.flong.com...ays/essay_cvad/

http://download.intel.com/technology/itj/2005/volume09issue02/art02_computer_vision/vol09_art02.pdf

http://en.wikipedia....Computer_vision

 

and many more by searching Google for "Computer Vision":

 

Google - Computer Vision

Edited by Daedalus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the planet Vulcan and its ingenious inhabitants have been able to cloak their planet from our view excepting under unusual stellar activity :o

 

or maybe the mainstream explanation is correct :)

 

Hmmm... you may be on to something considering the logic of those Vulcans. After all what better place to hide from us Earthlings....:doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
What idiot would really think that's a giant planet-sized spaceship

 

Yes, he's an idiot, but what is wrong with the general idea?

 

Do you have some form of knowledge that says such a vessel can't be built?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't calling bbouch an idiot :x

 

 

 

1. There are plenty of logical explanations for the pictures.

 

2. A spaceship that large? Really? Do you know how big that would have to be?

 

I think it would be impossible to build a functioning spaceship of that size.. please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Appolinaria
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be impossible to build a functioning spaceship of that size.. please correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't have to build one: it is much simpler to just convert a planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the source ... Yahoo's "The Sideshow" blog written by Eric Pfeiffer.

 

This aptly-named tabloid-style blog, which Yahoo choose to categorize as "news", does not focus on science or space aliens, but seems to have the common thread of sensationalism.

 

Furthermore, I find no credentials on Pfeiffer, who unlike Yaho's equally-billed Liz Goodwin (National Affairs Reporter), Dylan Stableford (Senior Media Reporter), Rachel Rosen Hartman (Political Reporter) and others, does not have a Yahoo job title.

 

No mystery there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well have fun orbiting around mercury with those temperatures

If you can build a spaceship the size of a planet, you can also build a proper A/C unit.

 

Remember that the dark side of Mercury can get as cold as -180°C... so our friends in the large spaceship will also have a dark side which is extremely cold. They can insulate the hot side, and radiate a lot of heat away on the cold side.

 

And you can make that flexible too: place good insulation everywhere, but put lots of small radiators on the outside of that, which you only turn on when you need it... so it's not as if you always have to face the sun with the same side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, still don't think you could build a spaceship the size of a planet ...

 

And the temperature fluctuations are drastic, we obviously have insulation materials that can withstand greater temperatures than 800 f, but for such a large structure? and for long periods of time? I'm not sure this spaceship would last long... it would be costly, inefficient, laborious...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the temperature fluctuations are drastic, we obviously have insulation materials that can withstand greater temperatures than 800 f, but for such a large structure? and for long periods of time? I'm not sure this spaceship would last long... it would be costly, inefficient, laborious...

I agree. The Corinians would obviously have early 21st century Earth technology as well as human-like size and temperature requirements. Why wouldn't they also have a similar economy to ours? If you think the Dow can suffer without any effect on alien stock markets, you're nuts! With the obvious fall in the Quatloo, who in the universe could even afford a spaceship of that size?!

 

 

 

Anyway, kidding aside, the explanation that it's an image processing effect is doubtless.

 

I think that with automation and replication, building large scale structures is conceivable. Who knows what future technology might be like say 10000 or a billion years in the future, and whether bigger is better or not. I think a Dyson sphere would be possible, and a lot bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The Corinians would obviously have early 21st century Earth technology as well as human-like size and temperature requirements. Why wouldn't they also have a similar economy to ours? If you think the Dow can suffer without any effect on alien stock markets, you're nuts! With the obvious fall in the Quatloo, who in the universe could even afford a spaceship of that size?!

 

 

 

Anyway, kidding aside, the explanation that it's an image processing effect is doubtless.

 

I think that with automation and replication, building large scale structures is conceivable. Who knows what future technology might be like say 10000 or a billion years in the future, and whether bigger is better or not. I think a Dyson sphere would be possible, and a lot bigger.

 

I meant costly as in the energy expended and material-wise, I think that is universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant costly as in the energy expended and material-wise, I think that is universal.

Sorry; that does make sense. In that case my reply was unnecessarily silly but I still think the point is still reasonable: A ship of that size doesn't make sense based on current human scales, technology, and scientific understanding. Your argument could also be used to argue that the pyramids would never be built.

 

I do agree with you that it's not a ship, and that such a ship would be unlikely for many reasons, even less likely compared to say a much smaller ship... but that this argument makes a lot of assumptions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, still don't think you could build a spaceship the size of a planet ...

 

And the temperature fluctuations are drastic, we obviously have insulation materials that can withstand greater temperatures than 800 f, but for such a large structure? and for long periods of time? I'm not sure this spaceship would last long... it would be costly, inefficient, laborious...

The larger the structure, the easier it is to insulate. Large objects will only suffer from temperature fluctuations at the outside, and very large structures have relatively little "outside" for its volume.

 

Many systems become cheaper and more efficient as they get larger. There is a reason that chemical factories are generally large. It's cheaper and more efficient. (Cheap in terms of energy, materials and labor).

 

I think the main problem of a theoretical huge spaceship is to find a purpose for it. You would need to justify the huge expenses with a good purpose, but what would anyone need it for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the main problem of a theoretical huge spaceship is to find a purpose for it. You would need to justify the huge expenses with a good purpose, but what would anyone need it for?

1. To move your entire civilisation, or a significant portion of it from your home star system.

2. Recreational pursuits.

3. Perhaps the aliens are really big. (No. I mean really big.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. To move your entire civilisation, or a significant portion of it from your home star system.

2. Recreational pursuits.

3. Perhaps the aliens are really big. (No. I mean really big.)

 

1. Propelling a planet sized spaceship? If intelligent beings can somehow do that, then they're probably smart enough to have developed teleportation or something like that.

 

2. Haha.

 

 

3. Then their brains are probably larger and can fathom some excellent technology that doesn't require lugging a dense spaceship across the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main problem of a theoretical huge spaceship is to find a purpose for it. You would need to justify the huge expenses with a good purpose, but what would anyone need it for?

Sorry to digress, and it's an interesting question, but... isn't that a bit unscientific? You're asking why it would be there. If you're talking about humans building it, then "why should we?" is scientifically relevant. But if we're talking about finding an object near mercury, aren't you're saying "We found evidence of this ship. To determine whether or not it is a ship we must ask why anyone would build it." Justifying its construction might be useful for explaining it or determining what it was for, but it wouldn't change the evidence of whether or not it was actually built.

 

"The problem of a theoretically infinite universe is to find a purpose for it." ???

 

I suppose my point is only valid if we're using the answer to "Why would anyone build it?" to answer "Is it there or not?", which was the case earlier in the thread. Otherwise the question could be scientifically relevant.

 

 

 

 

4. Because they can?

5. Alien hubris. Showing up the neighbors, who built a ship half the size of Mercury last spring.

6. Because the best technology they have works better on a bigger scale.

Edited by md65536
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.