It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Chelyabinsk "Meteorite"

page: 4
11
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Phage

So I would say that they are closer than 41,000 feet.

The meteor is estimated to have fragmented about 13 miles above the surface. That's a bit more than 41,000 feet.

Based on what? You think that you can get a quality 360p video on a camera phone 13 miles above the surface like that?

You can even see the detail in the clouds.

41,000 feet is what airplanes fly at. This is lower than a plane.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:55 AM
Correction, the clouds appear lower. There's no way to estimate their altitude from that

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:13 AM

You seem pretty convinced your assumptions are accurate. I'm not sure why.

As pointed out. You have no way of knowing the altitude of the cloud or even if the boom is directly associated with them. If the fragment(s) which created the cloud were moving at supersonic speeds, they would be there and gone before the sound reached the camera.

edit on 2/18/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:57 AM

41,000 feet is what airplanes fly at. This is lower than a plane.

And how high did you determine the clouds are in the video? By guessing?

Its impossible to figure that from a one dimensional viewing screen. Or how long it took to begin recording after the meteor went by.
But here, consider this. Your original video shows the whole trail. If you count seconds for that to appear in this video you loosely come up with about 15 seconds to make that trail. If you (assume) the object was traveling about 20 miles per second then that trail in your video is about 300 miles long. How long does it look to you in your video?

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Phage

So I would say that they are closer than 41,000 feet.

The meteor is estimated to have fragmented about 13 miles above the surface. That's a bit more than 41,000 feet.

Let us assume the observer was directly below the meteor path it would take the sound about one minute to reach him at that altitude. Based on the video Jr Davis is referencing the observer would have had close to 28 seconds to see the plume and get his camera going. More than enough time in my opinion. The boom hit 32 seconds after he started filming. I am not sure why he thinks the plume must be lower than that.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:42 PM
This is how I viewed the math to figure out if the video made sense. I have no idea how long he had been recording since the event started but that the smoke trails already exist.

Sounds travels close to 700 miles per hour
Divided by 60 minutes = 11.666 miles miles per minutes
divide 1 minute by 60 seconds = .19444444 miles per second
Multiply that by the seconds that the first boom is heard 31sec x .19444444 = 6.02777 miles
Multiply 6.02777 miles by feet per mile 5280 = 31,826 ft.

I find the video completely reasonable considering even if the event started 30 seconds before the beginning of the video that would put the altitude of the 1st bang at around 100 thousand ft.

The speed of the object has nothing to do with how long it is before you hear it. As long as it is traveling faster than the speed of sound the time it takes to reach you only has to to do with the distance it is away from you.

This is how I see it but I'm open to be corrected.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:42 PM
this is funny stuff..lets not let science and sh#t get in the way of a good conspiracy..

someone suggested a north korean sattelite..of course it was..oops my bad the poster was kidding..thank god..lol
edit on 18-2-2013 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:56 PM

1:20 seconds here.

It's obviously not sound seeing as this guy is nearly just as close as the other guy who was right under it and it took 32 seconds to hear the sound.

Honestly if you think these clouds are lower than normal clouds which are 11 miles above surface than something is wrong.

I'm figuring out how to prove these obviously are lower than 13 miles =]. Since some really don't get it lol.

I will edit op soon enough.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:02 AM
I'm waiting forward for your evidence. Or any reasonable explanation how someone would measure the distance based on video.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:12 AM

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm waiting forward for your evidence. Or any reasonable explanation how someone would measure the distance based on video.

In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.

So 41,000 feet to meters 12496.8 m

12496.8 M / 345 m/s = 36 Seconds.

By that. The sound that is released is said to be a sonic boom.

Which was caused by the meteor flying by at extremely high speeds (33,000mph)

Much like a jet moving faster than the speed of sound and breaking the barrier.

Ever sat there and watched lightning strike and waited for the thunder and counted the second in between so you can figure out how far away you are from the storm?

The same concept.

But they are saying this is 13 miles from the surface. Which would mean it would be higher than normal clouds in the air. And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere.

Which is 11 miles from the surface.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.

Based on what?

And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.

Which details you are referring to? How do you measure the size of these "details". And what the hell is that "that type of camera" is supposed to mean?

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:18 AM

In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.
Your subjective observations of a video are worthless.

Which was caused by the meteor flying by at extremely high speeds (33,000mph)
While fragments of the meteor may have produced sonic booms the primary boom was the result of the energy released at the initial fragmentation.

Much like a jet moving faster than the speed of sound and breaking the barrier.
Not really relevant but that jet is not exceeding the speed of sound. That is prohibited in populated areas.

But they are saying this is 13 miles from the surface. Which would mean it would be higher than normal clouds in the air.
Yes, it would. But these are not "normal clouds", you are assuming you know how high they are, and you are assuming the boom is associated with them.

edit on 2/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.

Based on what?

And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.

Which details you are referring to? How do you measure the size of these "details". And what the hell is that "that type of camera" is supposed to mean?

Based on the fact clouds sit in the Stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.

If the person in this video recorded clouds with the Camera they have. They would not get the detail on those clouds in the Stratosphere like they did with these 2 Contrails.

These contrails look closer than clouds in the stratosphere.

Based on? Common sense? Don't know how else to explain it lol.

The video is 360p. So it wasn't that great of a Cam.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:20 AM

edit on 19-2-2013 by JrDavis because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:22 AM

The key part was "how do you know the size of those details"? What you see as a detail could be 10km wide. You have no way of measuring that.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by PsykoOps

The key part was "how do you know the size of those details"? What you see as a detail could be 10km wide. You have no way of measuring that.

How do you have no way of measuring it when the Camera is right underneath the clouds and the viewer records the earths surface and then back up to the clouds.

I could understand where you are coming from if he was only recording the clouds and nothing else in the video.

It's the same thing with this video.

There is a height reference with the building and the cloud (which is not directly over the building).

The cloud is very close in height related to the building. If it wasn't it would appear to be much higher.

You think 13 miles from the surface and it would look that high next to a building?

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:47 AM

do you know the size of the cloud? perspective can play with your ability to judge distances.

edit on 19-2-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by JrDavis

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.

Based on what?

And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.

Which details you are referring to? How do you measure the size of these "details". And what the hell is that "that type of camera" is supposed to mean?

Based on the fact clouds sit in the Stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.

If the person in this video recorded clouds with the Camera they have. They would not get the detail on those clouds in the Stratosphere like they did with these 2 Contrails.

These contrails look closer than clouds in the stratosphere.

Based on? Common sense? Don't know how else to explain it lol.

The video is 360p. So it wasn't that great of a Cam.

Noctilucent clouds look like the are in the Stratosphere and they form at 250,000 to 280,000 feet. Yes the detail is great and have you noticed it is a perfectly clear outside? They look closer than the Stratosphere? What unit of measurement is that?

Altitude and size of blast was determined by listening stations around the world. Look up CTBTO.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:51 AM

I am repeating myself but: you have no way of knowing the size of these "details". Even if they appear small and detailed to you they might be 10km in size. What part of that is confusing?

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:37 AM

Noctilucent

Probably very high altitude clouds above 100,000 feet. If we knew the exact latitude, time of day, "elevation of the shot" there is enough shadow detail to calculate the angle of the sun within a few degrees.

First glimpse it looked 90+ to me get a gold star from Phage if you get the correct altitude within 1000 feet.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

11