Moontanman Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) What appears to be a meteor ejects a piece of it's self at high speed in the opposite direction of the meteors trajectory. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1597338447166606 Edited January 6, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The meteor was traveling in a very predictable way. Why, oh why, didn't the cameraman stay with the ejecta, or zoom out? From our perspective, it looked like that piece had a great deal of energy behind it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 From the comments on the page it is said that it is a Nasa launch. I found no corroborating info, todays launch has been canceled. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/liftoff-aborted-spacex-attempt-historic-landing-delayed-n280391 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Probably had a cavity, where gas inside it was increasingly compressed by the heat, eventually ruptured and blasted a piece off like a shotgun.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The direction could be our perspective - if the meteor is coming roughly towards us and going to pass our left it would look like the main body (it is going slower than a meteor with a path perpendicular to our view) a piece is blown off the side of meteor. This piece travelling at - say 45 degrees to the main body - would now be travelling roughly towards us and going to pass us on the right. If you see this in projection without being able to judge perspective it looks as if the piece is ejected immediately behind The meteor was traveling in a very predictable way. Why, oh why, didn't the cameraman stay with the ejecta, or zoom out? From our perspective, it looked like that piece had a great deal of energy behind it. I think it was fading out - it seems to be visibly diminishing during the few seconds on screen and that's why when the main body goes behind the house and he flicks back to find the ejecta he cannot I am not just reflexively saying fake - as I am not an expert in this at all - but if you look around the 30-31 second mark in slow-motion then the glowing tale seems to pass in front of the wire coming diagonally down from telegraph pole. It seems to marked to be halation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 Why didn't the ejecta leave a trail? I've watched it several times imatfaal, it looks to me like the main meteor is in the sky and does not pass in front of the wires, in those lighting conditions and with camera focusing on such a distant object I think that passing in front of the wire is a camera artifact. Also it must have been very high to appear to move that slowly. I think I would have stayed with the ejecta on camera instead of following the main body. I have some real doubts that a piece could be shot away from the main body by a pocket of gas, and it appears to accelerate and get smaller as though it is moving away from the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Also the ejecta does not seem to come out of the head of meteorite, but from a point in the middle of its tail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Also the ejecta does not seem to come out of the head of meteorite, but from a point in the middle of its tail. That's the way it seems to me as well. I would expect aerodynamic heating to break up a meteor, but I think StringJunky may be right about the pocket of gas. It just seemed like more than weakened material coming off the meteor, there was some energy behind that ejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 That's the way it seems to me as well. I would expect aerodynamic heating to break up a meteor, but I think StringJunky may be right about the pocket of gas. It just seemed like more than weakened material coming off the meteor, there was some energy behind that ejection. The separation rate would add up wouldn't if it was ejected more or less opposite to the direction of motion; making the ejection speed look faster than it actually was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 I can't understand why the ejected object didn't leave a vapor trail, when ever a meteor breaks up the pieces leave trails just like the original object... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I can't understand why the ejected object didn't leave a vapor trail, when ever a meteor breaks up the pieces leave trails just like the original object... The hottest zone would be at the front and the vapour wraps around the meteor from there to the rear. If the ejecta was blown out from the cooler rear half it probably wasn't hot enough to leave a trail. I saw an amazing Earth grazer once as a teenager and I could see the flames coming from the front to the rear and I suspect this is what happened with this one but it is more gaseous in the video than the one I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 The hottest zone would be at the front and the vapour wraps around the meteor from there to the rear. If the ejecta was blown out from the cooler rear half it probably wasn't hot enough to leave a trail. I saw an amazing Earth grazer once as a teenager and I could see the flames coming from the front to the rear and I suspect this is what happened with this one but it is more gaseous in the video than the one I saw. Although it might not have been hot at the instant it was ejected it should have heated up almost instantly from air friction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I can't understand why the ejected object didn't leave a vapor trail, when ever a meteor breaks up the pieces leave trails just like the original object...Clearly it's not a meteor but an alien craft crashing. The ejected object is an escape pod and it just hasn't deployed its descent mechanism while still in the video frame. That mechanism may be engines of some kind, fold-out wings for a glide down, parachutes, or some technology we haven't thunk up yet. The truth is out there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Clearly it's not a meteor but an alien craft crashing. The ejected object is an escape pod and it just hasn't deployed its descent mechanism while still in the video frame. That mechanism may be engines of some kind, fold-out wings for a glide down, parachutes, or some technology we haven't thunk up yet. The truth is out there. I fully concur as Acme is always OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I wonder maybe it is in fact the encountering of 2 objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Although it might not have been hot at the instant it was ejected it should have heated up almost instantly from air friction. It is air compression I believe not friction (that is by the by) - and a small rapidly dispersing piece might not have generated the heated matter to leave a tail and would rapidly lose the heat it already had whilst part of the whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I am almost convinced it's a hoax but you may be correct. I was assuming a very high altitude very fast meteor if it was lower and slower I can see the ejected piece not leaving a trail but it appeared to be hot enough to glow... Edited January 7, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Moon et al. if I had the time (and I may later) I would download Tracker Video and plot the courses and fixed landmarks (roof point, telegraph pole) . Once you can see a simple path it is often easy to show it is faked. And the opposite is almost true - very few fakers have the physics and maths to create a trajectory that actually will resist this form of investigation; so if it does then maybe it is true. This would not apply to powered objects... It is worth reading Rhett Alain at Wired on this subject. His analyses of web viral videos is fascinating - he is an asnt prof of physics as well so he knows his mechanics and ballistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Moon et al. if I had the time (and I may later) I would download Tracker Video and plot the courses and fixed landmarks (roof point, telegraph pole) . Once you can see a simple path it is often easy to show it is faked. And the opposite is almost true - very few fakers have the physics and maths to create a trajectory that actually will resist this form of investigation; so if it does then maybe it is true. This would not apply to powered objects... It is worth reading Rhett Alain at Wired on this subject. His analyses of web viral videos is fascinating - he is an asnt prof of physics as well so he knows his mechanics and ballistics Thanks for doing that, I know everyone thinks i am secretly suggesting it is a alien space craft but in reality it was just puzzling and I love a puzzle. If it's not a hoax then it is rather strange to say the least, I've seen both videos and in person large meteors break up and I have never seen one do that, I have been drawing out some angles and seeing if the trajectory would allow for such a strange ejecta but my crude drawings tell me nothing but I would be amazed if a gas explosion resulted in what is seen on this video. It would have to have been a rather powerful explosion and that begs the question of why didn't that result in the total break up of the parent body? Generally that is what we see, the parent body begins to break apart but all the parts follow the parent bodies trajectory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Moon First off I tracked the point of the roof - and that seemed to follow a fairly good random path which weighs against it being a fraud. To explain; fraudsters will film "real portion" with high quality video and tripod and then add fakery of what ever sort, they will then degrade the footage and add camera wobble - if you use hand-held and then add fakery it is really very difficult to be convincing. The movement isn't the random walk I would expect - but it is also not a cheap filter that adds camera shake. I managed to lose my picture of the path Being unconvinced - I tracked the right edge of the roof for the time it was in frame, and then the right edge of the telegraph pole and I must admit the results are a little too good to be true. I have attached the results : I would expect the camera to be twisting more than it is - the shooter is remarkably adept at holding the camera level whilst panning back and forward. I haven't compared this to others ie known fakes and known trues - but it seems unlikely to me. OK then Firstly - here is the wobble plot. This is the point of the roof and its movement around the screen. I took this as my fixed base point. As you can see there is a fair amount of hand shake and panning going on. I have stopped where I have as he seems to be zooming and I am not convinced that I still have the top of the roof in frame Here are the two plots - I set point of the roof as the frame of reference and tracked the main flare and then the additional. The bottom plot is a simple x,y plot - ie it is the trajectory of the two objects. the red dot at (0,0) is the point of the roof (held steady by the analysis), the cyan line is the main flare as it goes from right to left and the magenta line is offshoot as it goes from left to right. Each point on this bottom point is a position at a new time. The upper plot is a velocity time plot v,t. The colours are the same and you will note that there is only a short section of magenta for the short time we can observe the minor flare. You can read the time off the x axis and the height of each point is the calculated velocity (this is not in any real world units - but it is consistent). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now