Fireballs with Sonic Booms increase over 500% from 2005 to 2012

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


While I do not believe in Planet X as the cause I do think we can move into a more dusty part of our solar system. It is one reason why some years the meteor showers are stronger than others.
Fireballs are generally outside of the "dust" category and moving more into larger objects. But yes, we pass through dusty regions on a predictable basis and the observed intensity of these showers can vary because of a few variables, including the density of that particular dust cloud. While fireballs are not commonly associated with meteor showers there does seem to be some annual variation in rates.


So at what point would you say we are definitely having an increase in activity, instead of more reporting?
If you're talking about the AMS database I'd give it another decade or so before it's much more than anecdotal. But if experienced observers start talking about an increase in activity I'll pay attention.

edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
wrong button...
edit on 28-2-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage
 


While I do not believe in Planet X as the cause I do think we can move into a more dusty part of our solar system. It is one reason why some years the meteor showers are stronger than others.
Fireballs are generally outside of the "dust" category and moving more into larger objects. But yes, we pass through dusty regions on a predictable basis and the observed intensity of these showers can vary because of a few variables, including the density of that particular dust cloud. While fireballs are not commonly associated with meteor showers there does seem to be some annual variation in rates.


So at what point would you say we are definitely having an increase in activity, instead of more reporting?
If you're talking about the AMS database I'd give it another decade or so before it's much more than anecdotal. But if experienced observers start talking about an increase in activity I'll pay attention.

edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't say I am inexperienced, but for kicks and giggles I emailed one of the AMS guys I have talked with before and said I am curious if we are having an increase in activity, as I thought daylight fireballs are more rare.

He said I am not the only one, although with the Russian event I am sure for the next few months or so people's curiosity will be peaked.

I did also ask him if he felt it was more reporting or more activity or both. Let you know what he says.

Although thinking about it IMO (International Meteor Organization) could possibly tell us more.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


I wouldn't say I am inexperienced,

I wouldn't say so either. But I think you would agree that the fact you saw a daylight fireball doesn't really indicate an increase in the overall rate.

I've looked at the IMO site. It's of interest because the observations seem to be from "experienced observers" but the database is hard to use, though I admit I haven't tried too hard to get into it.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Tell me, when did you become aware of the AMS website? When did you become aware that you could report fireball sightings there? Now, if you saw a fireball before you knew about the website, how could you report it? But now you know about it so if you do see a fireball you can report it. See how it works? As more people learn about the website, more people are able to report their sightings. Multiply you by a lot more people and what do you get? More fireball reports but no real reason to think there are more fireballs.


So let's think this through. Either we have:

1. People have learned about the AMS website! Now they are going to become meteor hunters, eagerly reporting on fireballs when they see one, eager to become an anonymous star? Fireball reports increasingly grow year over year grow as the geeks tell their geek friends?

2. People who don't know anything about the AMS website see a fireball. They go online and search for "meteor/fireball reporting". They find the AMS website and report their fireball. Fireball reports increase as the number of fireballs is actually increasing, especially interesting is the reported with sound or concurrent sound category, as these never used to be reported.

What is so terrible about the number of fireballs actually increasing? Is it a verboten subject?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

You have created a false dichotomy but...


Fireball reports increasingly grow year over year grow as the geeks tell their geek friends?
Yes, more or less:
"Hey did you see that fireball last night?"
"No, but did you report it?"
"Report it? Where?"



They go online and search for "meteor/fireball reporting".
If it occurs to them to do so.


Fireball reports increase as the number of fireballs is actually increasing, especially interesting is the reported with sound or concurrent sound category, as these never used to be reported.
Never? Really? Are you sure about that? Oh wait. You're talking about the AMS database.


What is so terrible about the number of fireballs actually increasing? Is it a verboten subject?
Not at all. But it certainly would easily fall into the category of doom porn.

What is "terrible" is basing any conclusions on a database which is based on volunteer reports and hasn't been around for long without applying any proper statistical analysis.

So, do you think there were no fireballs in 2004?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage
 


I wouldn't say I am inexperienced,

I wouldn't say so either. But I think you would agree that the fact you saw a daylight fireball doesn't really indicate an increase in the overall rate.

I've looked at the IMO site. It's of interest because the observations seem to be from "experienced observers" but the database is hard to use, though I admit I haven't tried too hard to get into it.


No you are right my observation does not denote an increase. I do know that daylight sightings are more rare and I am just paying attention to the data as well (but again Chelyabinsk has more than likely skewed that too.)


Mike emailed me back saying he was working a paper on just that and it should be done and posted on AMS next week! I am looking forward to what he has to say.

I have only visited IMO once after I photographed my first meteor and it has a ton of data 25 years worth. If you want to noodle through it, (too much and archaic for a quick peek) There are a couple other guys from the US that have sites if anyone wants to ask them. Personally I will wait to see what AMS says.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


People see a fireball, and if they haven't gone through the process before, could be inclined to report it, and if so are inclined most likely do a google search to find out how to go about that. The existence of the AMS website is an independent factor in that process. Meteor reporting websites existed before that site. The only difference with the AMS site is that it does a good job separating out reports that are a) just visual, b) with sound, delayed, c) with sound concurrent.

Many sources are reporting increased incidence of sonic booms with fireball sightings, here are just a few from the last six months:

Alabama fireball with boom Oct 2012

California/Nevada meteor plus sonic boom

The one in California was supposed to be a "big event":


Cooke called Sunday's fireball a "big event," based on the amount of energy that was released as the meteor entered the atmosphere.


What would that make the Russian event then?

When you do a google search of fireballs with sonic booms, almost all the articles are from 2009 on, and most are 2011/12/13. If fireballs weren't on the increase you would think a google search would pull up articles from newspapers, magazines etc from various years over the last decade or so in roughly equal amounts.

Why is it so hard to accept that fireballs with accompanying sonic booms are increasing?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


People see a fireball, and if they haven't gone through the process before, could be inclined to report it, and if so are inclined most likely do a google search to find out how to go about that.
That is an assumption on your part. Some may. Some may not.



Many sources are reporting increased incidence of sonic booms with fireball sightings, here are just a few from the last six months:
You have listed individual reports. Where are the reports of increased incidence?


What would that make the Russian event then?
A very unusual event. Especially since it occurred over a populated area.


If fireballs weren't on the increase you would think a google search would pull up articles from newspapers, magazines etc from various years over the last decade or so in roughly equal amounts.
Not really. Because they are anecdotal and do not represent a true sample. Compare the media reports with the number of fireball reports on the AMS site this year. But I'm not sure what you mean...
Google Fireballs in 2000



Why is it so hard to accept that fireballs with accompanying sonic booms are increasing?
Because I haven't seen the evidence which indicates it to be true.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The numbers speak for themselves.....We are entering a weird part of space, with much more activity on the way....


We can't even blame the numbers on lack of technology because the reports are starting a mere 8 years ago and definitely had good technology to spot these and record them back then also....

Weird times we are in that's for sure! I am not into fear mongering or anything, but it is also scary to see things like this also...IMO


I would have to find the links but NASA and other scientists produced papers that indicated we were moving into a region of space containing nebula within the equatorial plane of the galaxy, which is a higher "gas" density region of molecules per cubic meter. If that is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that there might be solid debris as well.

Apparently, every 12,500 to 13,000 years due to our symmetrical oscillation path through the galaxy, which has resulted from the proposed theory of the merger of our original galaxy and the milky way, we travel above and below the central plain or "equator" of the galaxy. It is very possible if this is the case, that the central plain which contains more matter and therefore increased gravity (and of course holds the spiral arms of the galaxy) would be an area that contained more rocky debris. If we travel in a symmetrical oscillation path through these areas containing debris fields every 12,500 years or so, it stands to reason that the Earth would be bombarded with meteorites every 12,500 or so years. Therefore, if we see a trend towards greater numbers and larger sizes of material debris falling into our atmosphere, it might be a good guess that NASA and the scientists as well as the new-agers are all right to some extent.

One has to wonder, if this area of increased debris exists, how thick is it? How long will it take our solar system to pass through it? Are there any planet-sized ricks we need to worry about, not that worrying would do any good? If you were the captain of a starship, where would you navigate your craft? A dozen parsecs above or below the equatorial plane of the galaxy or straight through the middle of it where gravity is the highest?

If the sun and of course the rest of the solar system is moving at between 220 and 250 kilometers per second through the galaxy and we encounter a stationary object, it still hits us at roughly 800,000 (plus) kilometers per hour. That's going to leave a mark.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Apparently, every 12,500 to 13,000 years due to our symmetrical oscillation path through the galaxy,
No. You seem to be talking about the harmonic oscillation of the Solar system. There is a (rather old) theory that there is a cyclical component to impact cratering (not really confirmed) which may be related but that is a 32 million year cycle. We passed through the plane of the galaxy several million years ago. It will be a very long time before we do so again.
pubs.giss.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The Dragon cometh... The cleanser it happens sometimes when we enter a new age if we have been naughties...



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Thank you, now we can discuss what is obviously happening and ignore those who admire the emperor's clothes.

This is an interesting theory and I'm going to read up on it more before commenting, but it would seem it would be one possible explanation for the recent sharp increase in daytime fireballs seen around the world.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Or maybe it's because Planet X is here.


I'm very interested in hearing why you think that, an approach of Planet X would certainly explain much, the increase in fireballs, increase in tectonic activity, increase in weird weather, increase in animal deaths, abrogation of the Constitution etc etc.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

I don't think it is.

Funny, you'd think that with all those effects you're talking about the tides would be affected too.
I look out my front window and see the tides are behaving exactly as they should. Exactly as they have for the 16 years I've been living in this house. No, I guess Planet X isn't here after all.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom
Well when you pick just nine years, you can make a trend to match whatever conclusion you like.

How about the previous, oh I don't know... hundred or so years. Do we have data going back that far?
edit on 28-2-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)


I challenge you to show me one year before 2005 in which fireballs were reported with sound in any kind of number they were reported in 2012 which was 246 reports. Good luck getting even more than ten for one year. I'm waiting.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

I don't think it is.

Funny, you'd think that with all those effects you're talking about the tides would be affected too.
I look out my front window and see the tides are behaving exactly as they should. Exactly as they have for the 16 years I've been living in this house. No, I guess Planet X isn't here after all.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Well, parts of Asia are sinking, and didn't I read something recently about the tides in the US NE being much higher than they thought they would be?

Anyway, a Planet X would have the same kind of affect on the tides that the planet Jupitier has on the tides which is what? Yet planetary alignments have been shown to cause tectonic activity.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111 That's total speculation.


As is the OPs assertions. Just because that narrative you believe and that which Phage has presented, doesn't make yours anymore valid than his. Maybe they should start teaching logic and critical thinking a bit more in schools.

There is no way to verify that the OPs numbers are 100% certain. Many could have been heard in parts of the world that have no instant connection to the world or Twitter/Youtube/ATS/etc. Or they could have occurred over the ocean; you know, that body of mass that covers over 70% of the Earth?

So to claim his assertion as speculation is asinine.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Yet planetary alignments have been shown to cause tectonic activity.

No they haven't.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by nomnom
Well when you pick just nine years, you can make a trend to match whatever conclusion you like.

How about the previous, oh I don't know... hundred or so years. Do we have data going back that far?
edit on 28-2-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)


I challenge you to show me one year before 2005 in which fireballs were reported with sound in any kind of number they were reported in 2012 which was 246 reports. Good luck getting even more than ten for one year. I'm waiting.



Interesting choice of words. I realize you know the data doesn't exist.

Cheap shot. We can see your character. Thanks for the tell.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join