Loud explosions in Hampton Roads area

reply to post by retired spook USN


You said it yourself, you dont give much credence to that site, Its Sorcha Fal. ATS has long been aware of this BS artist.

Originally posted by jlc767
reply to post by way2slo

 

I've been researching the fireballs in the sky and loud booms heard throughout Hampton Roads, Virginia and have discovered a few interesting things.

After a friend and I made a custom Google Map that was added to a PilotOnline.com article, many, many people began dropping pins. Some as far north as Erie, Penn and Brooklyn, New York. There was a pin as far south as Augusta, South Carolina.

Whatever fell from the sky not only lit up the night sky for the better part of the eastern coast, but the loud "boom" sound (explosion?) was also heard along the coast as well (this wasn't limited to just Hampton Roads).

So can a sonic boom encompass an area the size of the eastern coast of the United States? Would a descending rocket ("space trash") make an explosion loud enough to be heard from South Carolina to Erie, Pennsylvania?

Possibly. If propellant remained in that second stage, the detonation when the oxidizer and fuel combined as the stage broke up during re-entry might have been loud enough to be heard all over the southern US East Coast.

There were also comments on a PilotOnline article where some people heard multiple booms:

Submitted by yeldarb215 on Mon, 03/30/2009 at 12:57 am.

So it's 12:50 am and I have heard and felt the explosion for the 4th time since 9:45...

source

And another commenter reported seeing a E-2 Hawkeye in pursuit...

Submitted by de- NERVE on Mon, 03/30/2009 at 12:01 am.

I am looking forward to hearing what our U.S.Navy may have to say / offer , no sooner than the "boom" occured an E-2 Hawkeye was flying overhead speeding in the direction of the "boom"...

source

Thoughts?

NORAD would have had the orbital elements of the re-entering object in advance of its re-entry, and would have been able to vector in a Hawkeye to get radar imagery of any debris that fell intact - insurance against any of the debris impacting into a populated area.

Originally posted by Murky
Because of the incredibly high temperature which friction between the re-entering metal object and the air in our atmosphere causes. Eventually the re-entering material is superheated, burns fiercely, and pressure from inside the object (as the metal inside literally vaporizes) causes an explosion.

Rockets tend to be built from metals such as aluminum and titanium which, once they begin to burn, burn fiercely.

I don't think junk can react the same way that natural objects do, by exploding, unless there are enclosed compartments where pressure could build up. Generally space junk is too sturdy, and too slow moving to succumb to the same external forces that a relatively weak natural meteor experiences.

Natural meteors are pretty fragile things, and unlike man made metal parts would be full of faults, so they are predisposed to break up in most cases.

This event was probably NOT a reentry despite what the Naval Observatory spokesman is saying.

Firstly, the predicted orbit of the booster would have taken it over the area in question two hours later than the event that occurred.

Secondly, Kent Blackwell, the astronomer who saw it said it lasted only 8-9 seconds, which is typical of a longer natural meteor, rather than a short junk reentry. A big junk reentry (which it would have had to have been to cause booms on this scale), would last much longer, since reentries from orbital trajectories are "gentle" and slow rather than entering at a relatively high angle very quickly.

Thirdly, Kent Blackwell also described the color change of the meteor as going from "green to orange" in the time which he observed it, which is typical of a natural meteor that quickly penetrates the atmosphere, encountering different concentrations of oxygen/nitrogen (which glow green and red/orange respectively). Junk doesn't do this, at least not in such quick succession, since it gradually descends through the various atmospheric layers.

You can see the same effect when observing a cometary meteor shower like the Leonids:

Source: click here

Now they are saying its NOT Russian space junk:

USAF: 'Bright light' not man-made object

WASHINGTON - The flashing lights and booming sounds that were attributed to a piece of orbiting space junk were not the result of a man-made object, according to the United States Air Force.

In an e-mail sent to WTOP, Stefan Bocchino of the USAF Joint Space Operations Center says the "bright light" seen over parts of the East Coast Sunday night was not a result of a man-made space object.

The Joint Space Operations Center tracks more than 19,000 man-made objects in space, but no natural phenomena.

It was first believed that the lights and sounds were caused by space junk related to the Russian rocket Soyuz docking with the International Space Stations Saturday.

Link

now the story back to probably a meteor then huh? strange... what story do you think they'll choose to stick to cuz they seem clueless now. does anyone here have any thing ruled out? i have the raptors battling aliens ruled out, heh! C.H.U.D., do you have space junk/Soyuz ruled out based on what information you have been given?
p.s.- the source link on the first post is greatly updated, just so yall know. [edit on 31-3-2009 by pa.Frost]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by pa.Frost]

i cant find the video of the meteor online yet but i was able to find video of a newscast that has a brief interview with Mr. Blackwell in case anyone is interested. runtime is 2 minutes.

Originally posted by squiz
You've actually hit on one of the reasons friction alone cannot be the whole story. I'll ask another question - why should we see meteors when there is no air for friction to work against outside the atmosphere and very little in the upper atmosphere?

I do remember some of your posts squiz, and have read a little on the theory before. I don't know enough to trash the whole idea, but there are a few apparently serious sticking points in some of the claims that are in the areas that I do know a little about. Parts of the theory do seem compelling though I'll admit from what little I know of it, and I try to stay open minded to all possibilities, including that there may be some elements of this theory that have something going for them, and others that are far fetched.

The question you ask is actually fairly easy to answer.

Yes, the atmosphere is extremely thin at the altitude that meteors are first seen, but you must keep in mind that the average meteor enters the atmosphere at a relative velocity of around 30 km/s, and it can be as high as almost 80 km/s. That's allot of velocity, and it's not easy to get your head around just how much it is. Think about it for a moment.

OK, so air molecules are few and far between at these altitudes, but a meteor travels many km in a second. It's still going to slam into many molecules in a short space of time, making them glow. The meteoroid itself does not produce light. It's the action of it slamming into air molecules, thus exciting them, and making them emit light.

Earth's magnetosphere extends outwards about 70,000 km on the side facing the sun, and substantially more on the opposite side, so if electrical charge played a part, we would expect to see meteors becoming visible to us at those kinds of distances, but we do not. Instead we see meteors becoming visible at around 90-100 km, which fits in with what we know about the the boundary of the upper atmosphere.

Also, spectra obtained from meteors shows peaks that correspond to both oxygen and nitrogen, the two main constituents in the upper atmosphere. Meteors effectively cause our atmosphere to display it's own unique signature.

When they are inside the atmosphere this signature is displayed, when they are outside our atmosphere, we do not see this signature, ergo, there must be something in our atmosphere causing this signature, and we know what that something is - air, albeit thin air.

So this particular part of the theory is not supported by our observations, and since it does not fit, something has to be wrong in the theory - at least this particular prediction of the theory.

I don't know how well the other aspects of the theory stand up, since meteor-physics is my main interest, and I have not delved into other areas of astronomy anywhere near as much, but I am confident that at least this aspect of the theory does not stand up to scrutiny. Sorry.

Having said that, there's no reason I can see why charge might build up on the object and contribute in some small way to the light produced, but I am confident that we already know the mechanisms behind the vast majority of a meteor's light output.

I have yet to look at any of the links you posted, but I will over the next few days, time permitting!

Meteor spectra/Oxygen & Nitrogen excitation links:

Paper - The excitation of the oxygen metastable O I/1S/ state in meteors

Subaru Astronomers Measure Meteoroid Tunnels In Earth's

The Neutral Nitrogen Spectrum: Term Populations, Multiplet Intensities, Diagnostic Diagrams, and Comparisons with Observations

EMO

[edit on 31-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by pa.Frost
C.H.U.D., do you have space junk/Soyuz ruled out based on what information you have been given?

Yes, pretty much.

We can certainly rule out the Soyuz booster since the timing was out by about 2 hours.

Only large bits of junk can cause big booms, and all of those are tracked, so we would know by now if it was one of those. Someone would have worked it out by now if that was the case I think.

The descriptions of the duration, and color from Kent Blackwell also point to it being a natural meteor.

There's not much doubt if any in my mind that this was a natural meteor at this point in time.

We may never know for sure though if this one exploded over the sea or very rough terrain. A video of the event would probably settle the matter, if one exists.

C.H.U.D., one more question... I know this was a meteor but I am not in the field of anything anything outside of high school so I have to ask- the newscast I posted said 100,000 m.p.h., that has got to be false right? I thought speed of light(or perception of) was only 60,000 plus m.p.h.? i mean, if it was 100,000 m.p.h. shouldnt the boom have occurred 30mins or 3 days later? I am no expert, not even an introductee, but I do not think man could see 100,000 m.p.h.?

[edit on 31-3-2009 by pa.Frost]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by pa.Frost]

I'm sure that was the entry speed but being seen over a several hundred mile section I don't see why we couldn't see it even at that speed.

Originally posted by pa.Frost
C.H.U.D., one more question... I know this was a meteor but I am not in the field of anything anything outside of high school so I have to ask- the newscast I posted said 100,000 m.p.h., that has got to be false right? I thought speed of light(or perception of) was only 60,000 plus m.p.h.? i mean, if it was 100,000 m.p.h. shouldnt the boom have occurred 30mins or 3 days later?

pa.Frost,

No problem - that's what I'm here for

The velocity of a meteor can range anywhere from about 11 km/s (24,611 mph) to close to 80 km/s (178,993 mph).

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum according to wickipedia (about 670 million mph by my calculation), but I think you may be thinking of the "speed of sound", which is 343 m/s or 768 mph in air according to wickipedia.

I think it's around 40 km that booms are first heard, so given the value above, it would be at least 116 seconds before an observer on the ground and directly below would have heard the boom after having observed it.

Originally posted by pa.Frost
I am no expert, not even an introductee, but I do not think man could see 100,000 m.p.h.?

I see where you are getting confused, I think.

How fast we perceive speed to be, depends on how far we are away from the object that is in motion. As an example, imagine standing dangerously close to a road where everyone is driving fast. The cars will seem to go past you very quickly. If you face directly across the road, and keep your head still, a car crosses your feild of view almost instantaneously. You can barely see it. It's just a streak.

Now imagine looking at that same road from the window of a plane at 10 or 20 thousand feet, during take off. The cars on the road look like they are crawling along. One would take an age to cross your entire field of view that your eyes give you at that distance. The further away you get, the slower an object appears to move.

Since meteors are unusually eye catching objects, unlike most things, you can see them moving from a very long way off. Possibly a contributory factor to why people often servilely miscalculate the distance to the meteor, since a close object moving slowly essentially looks no different to a distant object moving at very high velocity, and also because meteors can seem to be unusually big (actually bright), which sends a false cue to the brain: "this object looks big, so therefore it must be close".

Meteors can be very confusing like this to the "uninitiated", and the aftermath (which we are seeing now) even more so.

Hope that helps clear up a little of the confusion.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
OK, so air molecules are few and far between at these altitudes, but a meteor travels many km in a second. It's still going to slam into many molecules in a short space of time, making them glow. The meteoroid itself does not produce light. It's the action of it slamming into air molecules, thus exciting them, and making them emit light.

I'm not saying ablation and chemical reaction are not taking place, I'm saying that there is evidence of electrical reaction, that also is producing light as you'll see below. I'm also suggesting that it plays a large role in crater formation but that's a bit off track.

Conventional meteoroid theory assumes that the dominant mode of ablation is by evaporation following intense heating during atmospheric flight. In this paper we consider the question of whether sputtering may provide an alternative disintegration process of some importance.For meteoroids in the mass range from 10^-3 to 10^-13 kg and covering a meteor velocity range from 11 to 71 km/s, we numerically modeled both thermal ablation and sputtering ablation during atmospheric flight. We considered three meteoroid models believed to be representative of asteroidal (3300 kg m^-3 mass density), cometary (1000 kg m^-3) and porous cometary (300 kg m^-3) meteoroid structures. Atmospheric profiles which considered the molecular compositions at different heights were used in the sputtering calculations. We find that while in many cases (particularly at low velocities and for relatively large meteoroid masses) sputtering contributes only a small amount of mass loss during atmospheric flight, in some cases sputtering is very important. For example, a 10^-10 kg porous meteoroid at 40 km/s will lose nearly 51% of its mass by sputtering, while a 10^-13 kg asteroidal meteoroid at 60 km/s will lose nearly 83% of its mass by sputtering. We argue that sputtering may explain the light production observed at very great heights in some Leonid meteors. The impact of this work will be most dramatic for very small meteoroids such as those observed with large aperture radars.

From the links I already posted. So you see it's both.

Earth's magnetosphere extends outwards about 70,000 km on the side facing the sun, and substantially more on the opposite side, so if electrical charge played a part, we would expect to see meteors becoming visible to us at those kinds of distances, but we do not. Instead we see meteors becoming visible at around 90-100 km, which fits in with what we know about the the boundary of the upper atmosphere.

This could be considered the simple explanation, again from the links. The word "expect" is an assumption here.

Astrophysicists try to calculate the original mass of the Peekskill bolide from the total energy released. They present a value range from 2 to 25 tons, but these calculations give no consideration to electric charge and electric forces. In the Electric Universe view, any object coming far from the earth would be charged differently. As it encounters lower layers of the Earth's plasma sheath, the voltage between the object and the layer would increase and the object would begin to discharge visibly.

So the charge exchange can begin at the outer layers, but it doesn't mean it would be visible until the voltage was high enough.

Also, spectra obtained from meteors shows peaks that correspond to both oxygen and nitrogen, the two main constituents in the upper atmosphere. Meteors effectively cause our atmosphere to display it's own unique signature.

Sure, no argument, also see the extract, and the one below concerning the light curve correlation to the electrophonics.

So this particular part of the theory is not supported by our observations, and since it does not fit, something has to be wrong in the theory - at least this particular prediction of the theory.

I beg to differ, the theory is based on observations, as the links clearly demonstrate. That part your referring to seems to be a result of my poor explanation, I do apologize, but I stand by my statement that the upper atmosphere is too thin to account for all of the light and lingering trails. There is nothing wrong with the theory only the interpretation, and low and behold the evidence for sputtering is actually there.

There's stacks of evidence actually. Please look at some of the research regarding geomagnetism and meteors.
www.imo.net...

I don't know how well the other aspects of the theory stand up, since meteor-physics is my main interest, and I have not delved into other areas of astronomy anywhere near as much, but I am confident that at least this aspect of the theory does not stand up to scrutiny. Sorry.

Please read the links, as I said don't trust my word, your running away with my perhaps faulty interpretation here and ignoring the scientific papers I've posted.

Having said that, there's no reason I can see why charge might build up on the object and contribute in some small way to the light produced, but I am confident that we already know the mechanisms behind the vast majority of a meteor's light output.

Yeah man, I'm not saying it's a replacement, it's an addition. No we don't know it all yet. I'll think you'll find that even in conventional schools of thought the jury is still not out on a complete explanation. For instance there have been hundreds of reports of hearing sound simultaneously with meteor which has been the subject of debate for hundreds of years. The electrophonic explanation has only gained ground in support since the 80's.

I have yet to look at any of the links you posted, but I will over the next few days, time permitting!

Oh man, that explains a lot. That's the evidence, don't shoot it down because of some dumbass on the internet.

Here's another extract on the electrophonic sounds and backed by fireball light curves. Who'd a thought?

Anomalous sounds from large meteor fireballs, anomalous because they are audible simultaneously with the sighting, have been a matter for debate for over two centuries. Only a minority of observers perceive them. Ten years ago a viable physical explanation was developed (Keay, 1980) which accounts for the phenomenon in terms of ELF/VLF radiation from the fireball plasma being transduced into acoustic waves whenever appropriate objects happen to be in the vicinity of an observer. This explanation has now been verified observationally and supported by other evidence including the study of meteor fireball light curves reported here.

All independent sources.

I'm also not at odds with the links you provided, c'mon dude check out the links, if this is your thing you have to at least look at it. The evidence is there whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Peace.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


I've just had a chance to look over some of the links you posted (sorry it's taken so long, but after the last couple of busy nights...), and I have to say, I'm not seeing any compelling evidence. I am seeing mistakes in reasoning though, like this one for instance:

Since there is no indication of oxidizable elements associated with the recovered fragment, it is unlikely that the flareups were caused by chemical reaction.

Source: click here

This statement is plain wrong, since we know that flareups are caused when a disintegration occurs. We already have a mechanism for this, unlike the article implies.

Also, the links you listed talk about this "spluttering", but I can't seem to find any references to observations that support this phenomena. If you could post a link that relates to this specifically, I'd appreciate it.

There's no argument that meteors produce VLF emissions, but that still does not necessarily translate to light. Does a radio mast produce light?

With the magnetosphere explanation that you give, the problem that I see, is that although you say that "the charge can begin" at the edge of the boundary, when we do see the light produced by a meteor, it's at the altitude where we would expect to see light because of the atmosphere interaction. If we can't separate/observe the light produced by electrical phenomena, then how can we assume that it is there? The fact is, we don't see light produced before it expected (ie at the outer edge of our atmosphere), which supports the accepted mechanism rather than the proposed theory.

It's all very well to say that electrical phenomena may be present when a meteoroid approaches the Earth, and I would be very surprised if there was not, but I see no evidence that this translates into any appreciable light output. There may well be some, but I have yet to see evidence that supports it.

Again, I'm only considering the meteor aspect of this theory since I don't want to comment on things I don't have a good understanding of.

Thanks for the links squiz.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
This statement is plain wrong, since we know that flareups are caused when a disintegration occurs. We already have a mechanism for this, unlike the article implies.

So out of all the evidence you pick on one statement?
I'm sorry but saying we already have an explanation, which fails in some instance by pure observation, does not make that statement wrong. They are talking about a chemical reaction and not ablation. I would like to add the following line that accompanies that statement. " Regardless, the total energy released would always be the combination of kinetic energy, chemical energy and electric energy."

With the magnetosphere explanation that you give, the problem that I see, is that although you say that "the charge can begin" at the edge of the boundary, when we do see the light produced by a meteor, it's at the altitude where we would expect to see light because of the atmosphere interaction.

Your ignoring the evidence of meteors observed at extremely high altitude up to 200km, so yes there is a problem, it's with the standard assumptions.
As you can see below the standard explanation fails in the face of the observation of AHAL meteors. It also fails in regards to cratering, even more evidence for that one.

Also, the links you listed talk about this "spluttering", but I can't seem to find any references to observations that support this phenomena. If you could post a link that relates to this specifically, I'd appreciate it.

Already provided. xxx.lanl.gov...

Sputtering is considered to be a primary destruction mechanism for interstellar dust (Draine, 1989). It is not part of conventional meteoroid ablation theory, but it has been suggested to be of some importance under certain conditions (Opik, 1958; Lebedenits, 1970; Brosch et al., 2001; Coulson, 2002; Coulson & Wickramasinghe 2003).

Perhaps look for some of these researchers.

There's no argument that meteors produce VLF emissions, but that still does not necessarily translate to light. Does a radio mast produce light?

Never said it related to light, it's another electric related piece of evidence. Along with the electrophonics that mysteriously correlate to the light curves.
Also plasma can be in dark mode and not be seen until glow discharge and will glow brilliantly when in arc mode.

It's all very well to say that electrical phenomena may be present when a meteoroid approaches the Earth, and I would be very surprised if there was not, but I see no evidence that this translates into any appreciable light output. There may well be some, but I have yet to see evidence that supports it.

No problem, but I'm confused, university papers are not allowed? perhaps you should take it up with the professors. Can you show explicitly that the light emission is consistent with atmospheric density? And also can you explain the AHAL or AHAP meteors? the standard theory doesn't cut it, plain and simple.

When meteors plunge into the earth's upper atmosphere, friction with the air causes them to incandesce and burn up. The smaller ones are completely consumed. A few bigger ones reach earth and are renamed "meteorites." So far, all of this is well-understood. But when meteors begin to burn up much above 100 kilometers, a problem arises. The air there is normally much too thin to cause incandescence and burn-up.

Observational anomalies are abundant. Two Leonid fireballs were seen glowing at 160 kilometers by Japanese scientists. In 1998, a Dutch team in China detected bright Leonids at 200 kilometers! In addition, some Russian reentering space-craft began glowing well above 100 kilometers. ANAL is a solid phenomenon.

Of course, the density of the upper atmosphere does increase somewhat when solar activity is high. Atmospheric gravity waves can also cause the atmosphere to bulge out. But these effects are inadequate to explain all observations.

www.science-frontiers.com...

Again, I'm only considering the meteor aspect of this theory since I don't want to comment on things I don't have a good understanding of.

This is the pitfall of specialization, if you were aware of the evidence for electrical cometary behavior and meteor scarring you may perhaps see the bigger picture.

No offense, this is more of a problem of psychological scotoma for people already in the field. Sometimes evidence doesn't cure that for some.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by squiz]

A little more evidence that defies the pure friction theory.

Here you can read about poorly understood, or little known properties of meteoroidal meteors (with exception of electrophonic sounds) and on other related topics......

The problem of meteoroid's flights is an interdisciplinary one, involving many branches of science. Despite significant progress in understanding the physics of meteor phenomena, several aspects are still not well understood. Among them, there are problems of origin of the so-called head echo; luminous meteor trails of very long persistence; and visibility of meteors at anomalously high altitude. In this paper the latter problem is considered. It concerns luminosity of meteors at heights above about 120 km. The author ( here and below the author means A. Ol'khovatov, unless otherwise stated ) published several articles on the subject in the early 1990s. Since that time new data have appeared which confirm the general ideas previously put forward....

Hmmm, another independent source.
Also this part seems to be at odds with what you are saying.

Meteor data. It has been generally accepted that meteors initially appear a little bit higher than 100 km height, usually no more than about 110-115 km. But in the last couple of years several reports have appeared describing anomalously high altitudes of some meteors. For example, Y. Fujiwara and colleagues[1] discovered beginning heights of two Leonid moderate fireballs of 160 km. During the Dutch Leonid meteor expedition to China in 1998, beginning heights of luminous trajectories of bright Leonids were observed up to 200 km by an all-sky video system

They're called AHAP or AHAL meteors, anomalous high altitude luminosity. The key word being anomalous, as in no explanation. Why? because there aint enough air up there.

A little more....

Luminous meteor trails. The problem of a long-living luminous meteor trails is not completely resolved. In the author's opinion, besides chemiluminiscent reactions, excitation by electrons due to plasma instabilities may play an important role[18]. It seems that experiments[19] with injection of high-speed plasma into the lower ionosphere support the idea. They revealed that the high-speed plasma injection can lead to formation of a large luminous area in the ionosphere, which continues to glow up to 3 minutes, despite that it contains practically pure air.

www.geocities.com...

Also interesting to note that the theory I've mentioned is also in support of anomalies involving spacecraft re-entry.

Space-vehicle re-entry data. Although not widely known, glow phenomena associated with space-vehicle re-entries, which cannot be explained as glow of re-entry plasma, were investigated in USSR in the early 1960s [7]. They were discovered by A. Lazarev and N. Uspenskii in 1960 during a night experiment with a re-entry vehicle. On July 6, 1960 a radiometer ( wavelengths 1.8-3.2 microns, i.e. infrared ) installed on the re-entry vehicle registered an upsurge of brightness commencing at 160 km height with maximum at 125 km. The level of the brightness was pulsating. Then the brightness dropped sharply and began to increase again from about 100 km to 85 km, where radio transmission "blacked out" due to re-entry plasma. In another experiment on July 24, 1962 on a re-entry vehicle there were several radiometers working in 0.8-3.2 micron band. During the approach to Earth at heights 145-105 km the radiometers were saturated with a strong signal. Then, at lower heights, the signal dropped to a minimum at 90 km, and later raised again.

Fits perfectly.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by squiz]

ive had the chance to see a few meteors on entry and no to looked the same, the first was very fast across the shy and looked like it poped like a firework, a nother looked like melting metal and left a faint grey streek till it just dimmed out. i guess the look of 1 comming in depends on its compersition.

Originally posted by squiz
A little more evidence that defies the pure friction theory.

Despite significant progress in understanding the physics of meteor phenomena, several aspects are still not well understood.

Yes, I agree, and am well aware that these aspects are not fully understood, but that does not necessarily mean that electricity is the answer.

Originally posted by squiz
Hmmm, another independent source.
Also this part seems to be at odds with what you are saying.

They're called AHAP or AHAL meteors, anomalous high altitude luminosity. The key word being anomalous, as in no explanation. Why? because there aint enough air up there.

Ok, I was unaware of those anomalous meteors, but they are rare exceptions, and no one knows exactly why it seems. Once again, there may be other explanations.

Originally posted by squiz

Luminous meteor trails. The problem of a long-living luminous meteor trails is not completely resolved. In the author's opinion, besides chemiluminiscent reactions, excitation by electrons due to plasma instabilities may play an important role[18]. It seems that experiments[19] with injection of high-speed plasma into the lower ionosphere support the idea. They revealed that the high-speed plasma injection can lead to formation of a large luminous area in the ionosphere, which continues to glow up to 3 minutes, despite that it contains practically pure air.

Yes, I agree, long lived persistent trains are a mystery. Obviously the trail is made up of ionized particles, and these might be somehow "given the extra energy" to to remain luminous for longer for longer than usual - we all know there is charge in the atmosphere, but, your original statement was referring to meteors:

Meteors may not be ejecting material through ablation only, the evidence does seem to suggest that the incandescence, flickering and disjointed flare ups is a result of an electrical interaction with the atmosphere.

Self-luminous persistent trains and meteors are two different, though related (obviously, since one is caused by the other) phenomena. As I said before, the accepted mechanisms account for the light produced in the meteor phenomena. The self luminous trains, could, I suppose interact with our atmosphere electrically, as I said above, although I have yet to see observations confirming this.... so, until then, I'm still on the fence about this specific aspect of the theory. Sorry

Anyway, I think we have derailed this thread enough, and I'm all "theorized out" at the moment

Thanks for the links again squiz. I'm sure we'll talk again at some point, perhaps when there have been some observations that directly support the theory. Very interesting find on those anomalous meteors once again. Feel free to send me any interesting links relating to meteors that you come across.

Edit to add: Sorry squiz, I only just saw your other post, after having replied to your latest post. Most of the points I tackled in my reply above, and the same applies, but I'll answer a couple quickly....

One paper (or even a few) does not mean a theory is correct. Your argument implying that I cant accept papers as evidence is neither here, nor there, since a vast proportion of what I understand about meteors is based on papers.

Can you show explicitly that the light emission is consistent with atmospheric density?

No, because it's not. There are other factors involved such as composition, but it does correlate with what we know about the atmosphere most of the time (excepting anomalous events as I said above).

Never said it related to light, it's another electric related piece of evidence.

OK, well, that was what your original statement related to, light. As I said, no argument that there is VLF produced, and the mechanism there is poorly understood.

Along with the electrophonics that mysteriously correlate to the light curves.

I don't think there's any mystery that the brighter a meteor gets, the more radio emissions/VLF it will create. Radio, is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, as is light, so it pretty much goes without saying that one goes hand in hand with the other. This is pretty basic stuff...

Either way, I have other things to be getting on with - like sleep!


Now, back to the topic at hand...

Anyone come across any recent updates?

[edit on 1-4-2009 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by talon
ive had the chance to see a few meteors on entry and no to looked the same, the first was very fast across the shy and looked like it poped like a firework, a nother looked like melting metal and left a faint grey streek till it just dimmed out. i guess the look of 1 comming in depends on its compersition.

The composition, and a host of other factors, including velocity, angle, size, and even the state of the atmosphere will probably influence some aspects. If you watch them some more, you will see them do some very cool things

Every meteor is unique, although meteors belonging to the same shower can be very similar. Here's a bit of info that I wrote on the characteristics of meteors to help people identify them, if you're interested: Seen a swift/very swift moving light (colored or white) in the sky?

reply to post by squiz


Now , Im no boffin, but seems to me that although there may be too little atmosphere at 200/160k up to cause glow, perhaps the answer lies in some form of interaction with the magnetosphere instead at that height? I mean the magnetic feild of the earth is already known to glow when in contact with certain emmisions from the sun, so could this early glow be the same feilds interacting with something from the approaching objects in question ?

Wasn't going to bother but my obsessive compulsive personality gets the better of me

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Yes, I agree, and am well aware that these aspects are not fully understood, but that does not necessarily mean that electricity is the answer.

What it does show is that friction is definitely not the complete answer.
The other aspects including the ELF/VLF signatures, x-rays and electrophonics all point to an electrical phenomena. Plus the evidence for cometary behavior, electric arc scarring for cratering and anomolous glows for space craft re-entry and AHAL meteors all point to a to the overall physics. Also the spluttering effect can be seen on the meteorites themselves, friction IMO cannot account for the unusual poc marks that are indicative of electric arc scarring. The meteorite can build up enough charge and discharge excavating the material in leaving the tell tale traces.

Self-luminous persistent trains and meteors are two different, though related (obviously, since one is caused by the other) phenomena. As I said before, the accepted mechanisms account for the light produced in the meteor phenomena. The self luminous trains, could, I suppose interact with our atmosphere electrically, as I said above, although I have yet to see observations confirming this.... so, until then, I'm still on the fence about this specific aspect of the theory. Sorry
Anyway, I think we have derailed this thread enough, and I'm all "theorized out" at the moment

Yeah sorry to drag this out, but hey this thread is probably done by now.
The problem here is that the mechanisms you are talking about cannot explain the AHAL's so there is something else going on. And the trails have been associated with the electric field.
I'm not here to convert, so no worries.

Thanks for the links again squiz. I'm sure we'll talk again at some point, perhaps when there have been some observations that directly support the theory. Very interesting find on those anomalous meteors once again. Feel free to send me any interesting links relating to meteors that you come across.

No problem, I guess with observations it gets down to perceptions, in my perception the observations fit the theory and not just with meteors, it accounts for a much more alchemical view of the universe that makes sense, without all the nonsense that mainstream cosmology spouts.

One paper (or even a few) does not mean a theory is correct. Your argument implying that I cant accept papers as evidence is neither here, nor there, since a vast proportion of what I understand about meteors is based on papers.

Yeah a little arrogant of me, sorry. But that one paper is from a very respectable source and only happens to be the first I found, I'm sure there are more. It also refers to other researchers work over the years, unfortunately I can't find them. I agree that theories are just that, and must be falsified.
The AHAL's positively falsify the pure friction theory.

Along with the electrophonics that mysteriously correlate to the light curves.

I don't think there's any mystery that the brighter a meteor gets, the more radio emissions/VLF it will create. Radio, is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, as is light, so it pretty much goes without saying that one goes hand in hand with the other. This is pretty basic stuff...

Hardly basic, the electrophonics aspect is still just a theory as well, although it has gained much support, the synchronous sounds from meteors was and still is a long standing mystery and this is the best answer to date. mechanical sound waves are far to slow. Again it points to a electrical origin.
But of course it's our choice to take it or leave it.
I find it's virtually impossible to try to tell someone different when they have their mind made up regardless of evidence, don't take that the wrong way, as it goes for any subject.

Anyways enjoyed the back and forth, catch ya later