A personal experience for climate change deniers

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.

Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!

Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.

With a hydrogen or nuclear detonation, it's material reaches a critical mass. This is where the detonation device causes the atoms in the device to collide with each other. Then fission starts to occur and it's over in milliseconds. And even with how thin the atmosphere is, it's ability to create resistance, ie., heat up a meteorite can have the same effect.
If a meteorite releases neutrons from what it's composed of, then a chain reaction can happen. At the same time both nickel and iron have a flash point.
With nickel, it's 2,651°F/1,455°C and with iron it's 2,800°F/1,538°C.
The contrail observed might have been out gassing by the meteorite.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested

The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.

Skies don't have holes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.

So?

The glass is not the same composition as Saharan desert sand or Nubian sandstone upon which it rests.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:

True. The glass could be the result of lightning, or even man made. We just don't know.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
As your linked article says, "As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms"

The extreme pressure part supports my theory that a hole was blown in the "sky/heaven/firmament/container" like a dry ice bomb. Dry ice bombs explode because of extreme pressure. Thanks for the info.

There is no hole in the sky. Dry ice is not a bomb.

Why would you consider this 1000 tonnes of glass to have been the result of lightning?

You don't mean so many lightning bolts hit the desert sand and turned the sand to glass do you?

Perhaps are you considering it was upper atmospheric lightning that was responsible for shattering a hole in the thick yellow wall of protective glass all around the world?

That would be an interesting theory to consider...

But I still think the reidite signature indicates a high pressure type of explosion, the kind which happens if you mix dry ice and water into a glass bottle, and seal the glass bottle. The bottle will explode. People call that a "dry ice bomb."

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.

Dating the age of a rock tells you almost nothing. How can you assume this glass landed or formed in the desert 29 million years ago just because of radiometric dating???

I could make a new cabinet today from particle board of chopped up trees, some of which might be 100 years old. Is it a new cabinet or have I had it for 100 years?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.

Right. There is very little iron in the glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour, because of the varying degrees of its metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest glass found anywhere in the world.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is less than 2% iron content in the Libyan glass, but 4.5% iron oxide in Libyan desert sand.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Not a match. Also, I'm not sure there's nickel and cobalt in the Libyan desert sand either.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.

Right. There is very little iron in the glass.

No, there is iron in the glass, giving it it's color.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour, because of the varying degrees of its metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest glass found anywhere in the world.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' glass. Glass is fused silica compounds.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is less than 2% iron content in the Libyan glass, but 4.5% iron oxide in Libyan desert sand.

Nope. About the same.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Not a match. Also, I'm not sure there's nickel and cobalt in the Libyan desert sand either.

There is.

HarveyH55 wrote:
How close is the glass field, to the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? In the Book of Genesis, democrats over ran these two cities, which really pissed off the Big Guy in the sky. Knowing the evil demon-spawn, would never change their disgusting, progressive lifestyle choice, the only option, was to burn the bums out. Think God dumped melted glass on them?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.

The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.

No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.

Dating the age of a rock tells you almost nothing. How can you assume this glass landed or formed in the desert 29 million years ago just because of radiometric dating???

I could make a new cabinet today from particle board of chopped up trees, some of which might be 100 years old. Is it a new cabinet or have I had it for 100 years?

So, the glass was made 29 million years ago, but didn't fall from heaven, until a couple thousand years ago?

How close is the glass field, to the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? In the Book of Genesis, democrats over ran these two cities, which really pissed off the Big Guy in the sky. Knowing the evil demon-spawn, would never change their disgusting, progressive lifestyle choice, the only option, was to burn the bums out. Think God dumped melted glass on them?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.

Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!

Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.

With a hydrogen or nuclear detonation, it's material reaches a critical mass. This is where the detonation device causes the atoms in the device to collide with each other. Then fission starts to occur and it's over in milliseconds. And even with how thin the atmosphere is, it's ability to create resistance, ie., heat up a meteorite can have the same effect.
If a meteorite releases neutrons from what it's composed of, then a chain reaction can happen. At the same time both nickel and iron have a flash point.
With nickel, it's 2,651°F/1,455°C and with iron it's 2,800°F/1,538°C.
The contrail observed might have been out gassing by the meteorite.

Fusion doesn't require a critical mass. Hydrogen does not undergo fission.
Flash point is not a nuclear reaction.
Meteors don't have contrails.
No one observed the so-called Chelyabinsk meteor.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

No.

James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

Not necessarily. They only heat up because we want them to. Most spacecraft use the atmosphere as a brake.

James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

Very little water vapor at altitude. It's frozen, you know.

James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

Nope. Neither the water vapor nor the air are 'excited'. Friction applies to both, water vapor less than air.

James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Nope. Water vapor is LESS dense then air. That's why aircraft require more effort to stay up in humid air. The worse conditions for flight is hot, humid air. Takeoff runs and landing runs are much longer during these conditions.

Any pilot that doesn't realize this is going to have himself an accident.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?

What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.

The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.

I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

No.

James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

Not necessarily. They only heat up because we want them to. Most spacecraft use the atmosphere as a brake.

James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

Very little water vapor at altitude. It's frozen, you know.

James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

Nope. Neither the water vapor nor the air are 'excited'. Friction applies to both, water vapor less than air.

James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Nope. Water vapor is LESS dense then air. That's why aircraft require more effort to stay up in humid air. The worse conditions for flight is hot, humid air. Takeoff runs and landing runs are much longer during these conditions.

Any pilot that doesn't realize this is going to have himself an accident.

Yup. More home runs hit in warm humid weather. Better gas mileage warm humid weather. My ONLY chance anymore of hitting a golf ball 300 yds is in HOT humid weather.

Regis wrote:
To all of the climate change deniers, here are some facts.

Regis wrote:
For 650,000 years the Earth's atmosphere has had an average of about 280ppm. Only recently in the last 100 years, carbon emissions have risen to over 400ppm.

Regis wrote:
Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

Regis wrote:
The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

Regis wrote:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.

The large loss – 532 billion tons – is a stark reversal of the more moderate rate of melt seen in the previous two years.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

Regis wrote:
To all of the climate change deniers, here are some facts.

Regis wrote:
For 650,000 years the Earth's atmosphere has had an average of about 280ppm.

Regis wrote:
Only recently in the last 100 years, carbon emissions have risen to over 400ppm.

Regis wrote:
Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century.
The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

Regis wrote:
The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

Regis wrote:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

Regis wrote:
The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

Regis wrote:
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.

Regis wrote:
The large loss – 532 billion tons – is a stark reversal of the more moderate rate of melt seen in the previous two years.

Regis wrote:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

James___ wrote:
A recent study documented the effect of sea level rise, which averages 3mm per year globally and up to 12mm per year in the western Pacific in recent decades. The team found that islands in Micronesia have disappeared in recent years with little to no evidence they existed at all. Several Solomon Islands had similar fates in recent decades as they were overtaken by the sea.
...deleted Holy Link...

James___ wrote:
With that copy and paste work done, it was hard and difficult work, believe me.

And as for the Maldives, it has been shown that one island in the Indian Ocean has been built up. This is because as the tide comes in, it can bring sand with it. The base of the island under water will become a little steeper.
This was found out after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean where one island didn't suffer erosion but instead increased it's elevation. If researchers ignore this aspect of islands, then their findings could be misleading.

James___ wrote:
A recent study documented the effect of sea level rise, which averages 3mm per year globally and up to 12mm per year in the western Pacific in recent decades. The team found that islands in Micronesia have disappeared in recent years with little to no evidence they existed at all. Several Solomon Islands had similar fates in recent decades as they were overtaken by the sea.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study-finds-8-islands-swallowed-by-rising-sea-level/?sh=18e0cfc65283


With that copy and paste work done, it was hard and difficult work, believe me.

And as for the Maldives, it has been shown that one island in the Indian Ocean has been built up. This is because as the tide comes in, it can bring sand with it. The base of the island under water will become a little steeper.
This was found out after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean where one island didn't suffer erosion but instead increased it's elevation. If researchers ignore this aspect of islands, then their findings could be misleading.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

You probably saw the recent rocket launch.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

You probably saw the recent rocket launch.

No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

You probably saw the recent rocket launch.

No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"