Since no one has posted anything regarding the recent meteor "shower" (captured by numerous videos) in Russia, I have decided to start a thread. I have been analyzing various videos and reading explanations about this event, and I am ending up with a lot more questions than answers (disclaimer: I'm a newbie to the EU model, with basic undergrad EE knowledge).
Observations:
It appears that a meteor flying at great speed, begins to light up until at a certain point it emits a massive amount of light. According to NASA this meteor would have been 19 meters wide (approx 50 feet) and would have broken up in the atmosphere and subsequently a meteor shower. It is unclear whether all the videos captured by dash-cams and CCTV cameras were observing the same meteorite or different ones. It looks like one meteorite to me (as opposed to a "shower". Back to the observations... the meteorite follows a pretty straight line, then starts "burning up" or emitting light. At a certain point, it releases a massive explosive amount of light energy (and who knows what other kind of non-visible rays). Then it seems like it's catching it's breath, winding up it's energy again, then another even more massive burst of light/energy a second later. It looks like there is an accumulation of energy as the meteor goes through the atmoshpere and it's not able to let it go until it reaches a limit or some critical point of instability where it "explodes". The damage done by this meteorite's sonic boom were extensive, thousands of buildings would have been affected. Most are just shattered windows, but some roofs were also damaged. There is also a video showing the impact of some "debris" or "pieces" of the meteorite as it landed in an ice-covered lake. Strangely, it is a near perfect hole in the ice without any apparent large cracks surrounding it (this is not how ice normally behaves in a frozen lake. Anyways, the hole is only a couple of meters, at the most 3-4 meters in diamater, nice and neat. I have no way to explain this. I am not convinced that a superhot meteorite travelling at 200 miles per hour (the slowest terminal velocity referenced anywhere) and falling into a frozen lake would create a surgicaly precise hole. If it were normal debris falling form the sky, I can't imagine how it would create such a hole without any mess or cracking of the surrounding ice. Note: During the bursts of light/energy, there does not appear to be any electric arcing (ie lightning). It seems that the energy keeps building in the meteor and has nowhere to go until it reaches a certain point where it bursts out in all directions. According to Russia Today, some telecommunications services were down (cell phones). No mention of whether it was due to physical damage (ie sonic boom) or due to electromagnetics overloading circuits. It seems most damage was caused by a sonic boom while the meteor was still quite high, after having slowed down through the atmoshpere. I just can't see how friction can cause such a huge sonic boom and such a massive release of energy all of a sudden. I would expect instead a red hot object burning away (not burning away and shortly after exploding violently). The amount of light and energy produced by this phenomena does not seem proportional to the size of the object when looking through the "mechanistic" lense of "it's friction with air" and kinetic energy (ie, almost non-existent impact damage). Even more puzzling are meteor experts who say it's normal that a meteor is icy cold when it actually lands on the ground.
I'm really curious to see other's views and explanations, theories and so on.
There are many videos on youtube and via the media outlets.
This is an interesting take from Dr. Marc Fries, a meteor expert from the Smithsonian. http://smithsonianscience.org/2013/02/r ... an-expert/ One thing that caught my attention was the explanation on how all the heat and so on is generated by friction in the atmoshepere, yet it is totaly normal that when meteors hit the ground they are icy cold. The explanation is that the heating only lasts a few seconds therefore does not have time to heat the whole meteorite (even if the explosion prior to impact is estimated to be 20 times the Hiroshima atomic bomb???).
Kalopin
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Should I first explain that it was a METEOR and not a meteorite?
On the RT report one lady said that, at one point, all the metal objects seemed to have lost weight!? There were many sonic booms as it came in at such a low angle.
You can only imagine the amount of electrical disturbances. It appeared to discharge several times, while hitting different zones and amounts of particles through our atmosphere.
Asteroid Too The 3rd ABC video mentioned that an asteroid came close to Earth not long after the meteor. I think they said it passed at about 17,000 km. I imagine the meteor originally came from the asteroid. They said the asteroid was only 3 times as big as the meteor. The asteroid was seen in advance and predicted to miss Earth, but the meteor wasn't seen.
Electrical Sonic Booms Charles Chandler figured out that sonic booms seem to be a result of a bow shock of negative electric charge in front of objects, whether Mach 1 jets or Mach x meteors etc. The large part of the meteor that crashed through the ice of the lake must have slowed down before impact, I think. I guess the hole was about 20 feet in diameter and pretty much perfectly circular. Charles said meteor impacts seem to often produce thermonuclear explosions, but this one must have been too slow for that.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
All the reports suggests that the meteor does not come from the other asteroid, that it is merely a coincidence. It was the first question on everyone's mind. Chandler's theory I have not read, but in this case it appears to be caused by those explosions and not due to an object flying at supersonic speed creating some sort of bow shock. Even mytbusters (TV show) experimented and observed that very low flying supersonic jets breaking the speed barrier don't even shatter windows.
So how is the explosion explained? How to explain the massive amount of energy released for such a small object? Could this be the same phenomena as the lunar flashes? If so, the thickness of the atmosphere would rule out the "friction heating" theory of today. And why does a meteor expert from the Smithsonian say that it is completely normal and expected that these meteors are icy cold by the time they hit the ground???
not sure how to explain this, but something definitely seems to interact with the meteor. Perhaps it is also coming from the side as the viewing angle makes this hard to distinguish. But if it really is something that hit the meteor, what could possibly have caused this??? A rocket per se seems quite ludicrous, as it would be pretty much impossible to hit it. A sort of discharge also seems rather strange as it moves vertical...
tayga
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Corona wrote: A sort of discharge also seems rather strange as it moves vertical...
I don't understand that comment. Whatever it is that moves towards the meteor from behind is closer to horizontal than vertical. There is little doubt that its meeting the meteor coincides with the explosion.
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Corona wrote: this video really caught my attention:
not sure how to explain this, but something definitely seems to interact with the meteor. Perhaps it is also coming from the side as the viewing angle makes this hard to distinguish. But if it really is something that hit the meteor, what could possibly have caused this??? A rocket per se seems quite ludicrous, as it would be pretty much impossible to hit it. A sort of discharge also seems rather strange as it moves vertical...
I've looked at this video repeatedly and have a couple questions to add about what looks very similar to the space shuttle interceptor.
Can someone explain the different exposure segments of this video?
What is the speed of the meteor in comparison to the fastest intercept rockets?
"If" this was not an acticipated object, who could have scrambled anything fast enough with the intention of shooting down an object which was only visible for a few seconds?
If an airborne fighter were to take a pot shot at this, could a rocket from there realistically catch up?
I suspect there will be many more fragments found around the area and even more observation details to be added so some speculations seems a bit premature.
But i might safely say, The last visible luminous object seen at 18:31:06 of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5xMYRBpLSI is still very high and way past the town. The angle looks to put it way past the 50 mile ice-lake location. And i'm wondering if we've just seen a "skip-event" with natural planetary defense and subsequent fragment showering. d...z
...
GaryN
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
@Lloyd
The large part of the meteor that crashed through the ice of the lake must have slowed down before impact, I think.
They have found no fragments yet. The lake presented a path of least resistance for an electrical discharge I'd say. The whole event was primarily electrical in nature, with some odd phenomena that have yet to be explained, and a full scientific examination may provide some of the best evidence yet for the electrical nature of the craters on Earth and other bodies. This event may be one of the best things to happen in a long time to EU proponents, will lead to acceptance of electricity being a major player in astrophysics.
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
GaryN wrote: @Lloyd
The large part of the meteor that crashed through the ice of the lake must have slowed down before impact, I think.
They have found no fragments yet. The lake presented a path of least resistance for an electrical discharge I'd say. The whole event was primarily electrical in nature, with some odd phenomena that have yet to be explained, and a full scientific examination may provide some of the best evidence yet for the electrical nature of the craters on Earth and other bodies. This event may be one of the best things to happen in a long time to EU proponents, will lead to acceptance of electricity being a major player in astrophysics.
You can't be serious about the lake crater being an electrical signiture.
Your speculation about this being "primarily an electrical event" will sure bring a lot of criticism that may not do us much good. d...z
...
Maustin
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
GaryN wrote: @Lloyd
The large part of the meteor that crashed through the ice of the lake must have slowed down before impact, I think.
They have found no fragments yet. The lake presented a path of least resistance for an electrical discharge I'd say. The whole event was primarily electrical in nature, with some odd phenomena that have yet to be explained, and a full scientific examination may provide some of the best evidence yet for the electrical nature of the craters on Earth and other bodies. This event may be one of the best things to happen in a long time to EU proponents, will lead to acceptance of electricity being a major player in astrophysics.
Well, video shows people recovering small fragments from the ice around the hole (1 cm), but divers haven't found anything which could have (mechanically) made the crater. The hole in the ice does seem to be the site of a discharge and not an impact; it looks like it was burned in. How else to explain it's circularity and the absence of damage to the surrounding ice. Any physical impactor should have hit at a low angle and produced a more eliptical hole, and I imagine greater secondary damage to the ice around it.
I'm having trouble triangulating the lake relative to the path of the object in the sky. Can anyone determine their relative positions? It seems to me that the lake is off the side of the primary flight path, and not in line with it.
Also, are there signs of lightning strike at the collapsed factory? I was hoping to see some melted I-beams in one of the videos, but so far nothing. Has a meteorite been recovered from the factory site?
I find the shape of the contrail completely baffling as well. Two large parallel smoke trails, converging to two small parallel smoke trails (which don't line up well with the large ones), converging to a single thin trail along the centerline which fades into nothingness. What the hell? Good example footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozSq3yEm3g
promethean
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
(See also GreyCloud's thread "Asteroids")
I have heard conflicting reports re:origins...also do we know the California meteors trajectory ?
I don't know the frame rate on these cameras, but this is the only video that shows the electrical discharge to Earth. At 47 sec. you can see the beginning of the discharge straight down. As the charge builds into a blinding flash, at 48 sec, notice that a huge area below the meteor is glowing. Then at 50 sec. the downward discharge is gone and there is still a strong glow {discharge} along the meteor's path. No telling how many pieces are now in the sky.
The meteor may have made an electrical connection from the ionosphere to Earth, which resulted in the huge flash.
If there is a way to break down the video into smaller sections, we might beable to study in more detail. The hole in the ice may have been a residual discharge within the fragments found around the hole.
If you look at satellite images of that area you will see many craters/lakes.
the two twisting trails could be the birkeland currents from the ionsophere, unless these hypervelocity rocks can make curlycues...
GaryN
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Your speculation about this being "primarily an electrical event" will sure bring a lot of criticism that may not do us much good. d...z
Well lets wait for official scientific analysis, there must be lots of scientists examining this event now. The glass shattering, and even the brick structures collapsing is most likely from an EMP type mechanism, and pulsed electric fields are used industrially to shatter rock. Some of the mechanisms may be 'wierd', perhaps not accepted scientifically, like some of the Hutchison stuff. So you probably won't like my 'smoke' explanation either d...z, as I think those twin tails were not from rock burning, but more likely smoke size particles dissociated from the objects surface. This effect is enhanced in an electrical double layer, and I'd wager there were some pretty strong ones involved here.
nick c
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Well lets wait for official scientific analysis, there must be lots of scientists examining this event now.
I am sure that is true. But the question is, are they working upon the assumption that this is a purely mechanical process? If so, they may not see what they are not looking for.
kiwi
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Lloyd wrote: Asteroid Too Electrical Sonic Booms Charles Chandler figured out that sonic booms seem to be a result of a bow shock of negative electric charge in front of objects,
For example, sound is not a vibration of the air. A sound wave, we know today, is an electromagnetic process involving the rapid assembly and disassembly of geometrical configurations of molecules. In modern physics, this kind of self-organizing process is known as a "soliton." Although much more detailed experimental work needs to be done, we know in principle that different frequencies of coherent solitons correspond to distinct geometries on the microscopic or quantum level of organization of the process. This was already indicated by the work of Helmholtz's contemporary, Bernhard Riemann, who refuted most of the acoustic doctrines of Helmholtz in his 1859 paper on acoustical shock waves.1
Sparky, I dont now how to "upload" images here , but if you have an e-mail addy I can chop that vid into as many "stills" as you want.
I think it was Solar (or Web-o) who posted a link that contained an article on the craft ( pre Lacross) that impacted the Moon some years back on an old thread I was browsing last week,.It said that although no "flash" was detected they did record "whistlers" co-inciding with the crash ... whistler waves are an EM function as we know, ... not much chance of any "data" along those lines being around I guess concerning this event ?
