Explain meteors
« on: March 04, 2020, 03:52:06 PM »
Sometimes, meteors crash into us if they are any larger than a truck. Smaller rocks will most likely burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. We can also predict some of the larger meteors’ orbit. A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

I read the wiki, maybe not enough, and found nothing. I used the search tool and found about a dozen threads with no satisfying answer. If everything from the moon to stars is relatively local and also predictable, then what explains the unpredictability of meteor showers and the occasional meteor that reaches the surface? What are meteors?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1364
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM »
Sometimes, meteors crash into us if they are any larger than a truck. Smaller rocks will most likely burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. We can also predict some of the larger meteors’ orbit. A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

I read the wiki, maybe not enough, and found nothing. I used the search tool and found about a dozen threads with no satisfying answer. If everything from the moon to stars is relatively local and also predictable, then what explains the unpredictability of meteor showers and the occasional meteor that reaches the surface? What are meteors?

When I first got here I was told that these were pieces of the firmament/dome
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2020, 04:11:33 PM »
What explains the commonly non-vertical trajectory of them then?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1364
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2020, 04:21:34 PM »
What explains the commonly non-vertical trajectory of them then?

Oh man, I am not saying its true, just want I was told.   I asked about meteor crater in Arizona and why it looks just like the ones on the moon sans erosion and got the bits of firmament falling.  Not sure what that says about the quality of dome construction but that's more of an AR topic.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2020, 04:43:50 PM »
I was going to mention how the dome would have to be deteriorating like a Mayan temple, but decided the same thing  ::) I was also imagining a glass dome or something transparent but I don’t see the problem with rock. I’d be interested to know how high the dome is though, because the atmosphere would have to be thick or volumous enough to not see the dark gray layer of rock above us. Unfortunately, we can’t bounce lasers off the rock to measure its distance because the dome isn’t real. We can do this with the moon though and measure the distance based on lapsed time of the laser lights return.

I saw that thread and the answer given to you was unsatisfying.

So just to recap for the next flat earther to read:
What are meteors? Why do they not fall vertically if they are pieces of dome? Why are they unpredictable?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 04:57:58 PM by ImAnEngineerToo »

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2020, 09:38:25 PM »
Quote
A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence


I have been involved in this project.  Spent some time in Kwaj. I guess I am part of the conspiracy now.  ::)

*

Offline aga

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2020, 10:33:35 PM »
Considering a Flat Earth, it is entirely possible that material can be ejected from the Earth (think Volcanoes, Missiles, Airplanes) and fall back down onto the same surface, but in a different location.

To an Observer in that location, Meteor from Outer Space.
it all seems ok after many, many beers.

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2020, 01:52:31 AM »
Quote
A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence


I have been involved in this project.  Spent some time in Kwaj. I guess I am part of the conspiracy now.  ::)

I am jealous that you’ve worked on that. I’ve really been thinking I want to shift from more aero to more space in the aerospace industry. I guess I want in on that conspirator money.

The earth ejects material via volcanos, yes, but this debris is A) tracked B) small C) not high velocity at all, and D) not frequent enough for the volume of meteor activity. I’m sure I could find a X,Y, and Z point, but I think those first three are sufficient.

Planes crash and then we hear about it on the news. Also, previous point C applies to planes.

Remember that in order to burn up in atmosphere, your velocity must be so great that the air acts as a metal grinder and literally bursts any material into flames and vaporizes it. Planes reach Mach .8. Rocks from volcanoes don’t go high, far, or fast on the scale required.

Rockets are actually more plausible. Rockets gain so much lateral or “orbital” velocity that when gravity wins them back over, shear from the air makes the rocket bits burn like shooting stars. However we’d be able to exactly predict debris to become shooting stars based on launch schedules. Further more, Records of shooting stars predate Jesus.

I don’t know what else it could be...

Offline gurnb

  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2020, 07:31:35 PM »
Sometimes, meteors crash into us if they are any larger than a truck. Smaller rocks will most likely burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. We can also predict some of the larger meteors’ orbit. A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

I've been creeping these forums for a while.  You'll get some pretty incredible explanations for questions such as yours.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2020, 09:01:53 PM »
It's not out of the realm of possibility that they are parts of the moon. Since the moon is closer to earth than the sun, it could be little chunks breaking off and falling to earth.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2020, 10:31:03 PM »
Sometimes, meteors crash into us if they are any larger than a truck. Smaller rocks will most likely burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. We can also predict some of the larger meteors’ orbit. A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

I read the wiki, maybe not enough, and found nothing. I used the search tool and found about a dozen threads with no satisfying answer. If everything from the moon to stars is relatively local and also predictable, then what explains the unpredictability of meteor showers and the occasional meteor that reaches the surface? What are meteors?


Much like with many of the questions you are asking they really depend on the specific FE model.

In a flat disk, north pole center, dome FE model in which the area known in the RE model as outer space, exists outside of the dome, they could be part of the dome.
In a flat disk, north pole center, dome FE model in which the area known in the RE model as outer space, exists inside of the dome, they could be rocks flying through space
In a flat disk, north pole center, dome FE model in which the area known in the RE model as outer space, exists outside of the dome but the moon exists inside of the dome, they could be parts of the moon
In a flat disk, north pole center, dome FE model in which the area known in the RE model as outer space, exists outside of the dome but the moon exists outside of the dome, they could be parts of the dome


There are literally hundreds of combinations of the positioning of type of FE mode, as well as the position of things like space, the moon, the sun, the dome, and the firmament each with different possible answers.


In a flat disk, north pole center model with a great ice wall surrounding the perimeter which has no physical dome and no physical firmament there are still many answers depending on your specific version of that model:


1. There are no such thing as meteorites
2. They are parts of other celestial bodies such as planets or moons falling toward earth
3. They are rocks or other large hard objects made of things such as ice, metals, or other rocks which are flying through space which collide with the earth
4. In an infinite or unknown edge of earth subset of these models they could be chunks of  ice, metals, or other rocks flung high up into space above the atmosphere from the infinite (or unknown) beyond.
5. They could be pieces of heaven or the waste products dropped from heaven
6. They could be high altitude flying machines which malfunction or run out of fuel/energy


Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2020, 06:55:16 AM »
Sometimes, meteors crash into us if they are any larger than a truck. Smaller rocks will most likely burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. We can also predict some of the larger meteors’ orbit. A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

I read the wiki, maybe not enough, and found nothing. I used the search tool and found about a dozen threads with no satisfying answer. If everything from the moon to stars is relatively local and also predictable, then what explains the unpredictability of meteor showers and the occasional meteor that reaches the surface? What are meteors?

Meteor showers come from comets. And we’re taught growing up that Haley’s comet travels away from the sun all the way to Pluto. Then the gravitational force of the Sun is so strong it makes the comet practically take a U-turn. Sun pulls it back to the Sun but not into the Sun???  Passes right next to the Sun and all the way around the Sun and back towards Pluto.
To me if the Suns gravitational force is strong enough to turn the comet completely around.  Then the comet should land almost directly into the center of the Sun. Not right next to it. Haley’s comet is 60 times closer to the Sun than it is when it’s at its farthest from the Sun. That would be like you pulling on a 1/4 mile rope with a car tied to the end of it.  And when the car gets to you it goes 10 yard to the left of you.   

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2020, 10:40:17 AM »
we’re taught growing up that Haley’s comet travels away from the sun all the way to Pluto.

Why do you think that is so?

Then the gravitational force of the Sun is so strong it makes the comet practically take a U-turn. Sun pulls it back to the Sun but not into the Sun???  Passes right next to the Sun and all the way around the Sun and back towards Pluto.

To me,  if ... the comet should land almost directly into the center of the Sun. Not right next to it.

In astronomical terms, "almost directly into the centre of the Sun" is pretty much the same as "right next to it"

You do realise that your supposition of what should happen is in direct contradiction to the observations and work done by every astronomer, cosmologist, and other specialist since the comet was first seen. To quote Bryson;

Quote
Halley was an exceptional figure. In the course of a long and productive career, he was a sea captain, a cartographer, a professor of geometry at the University of Oxford, deputy controller of the Royal Mint, astronomer royal, and inventor of the deep-sea diving bell. He wrote authoritatively on magnetism, tides, and the motions of the planets, and fondly on the effects of opium. He invented the weather map and actuarial table, proposed methods for working out the age of the Earth and its distance from the Sun, even devised a practical method for keeping fish fresh out of season.

The one thing he didn’t do, interestingly enough, was discover the comet that bears his name. He merely recognized that the comet he saw in 1682 was the same one that had been seen by others in 1456, 1531, and 1607. It didn’t become Halley’s comet until 1758, some sixteen years after his death.

In light of what Halley and others have done, why should any credence be placed on what you say in preference to what they say? What work have you actually done in this field?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2020, 10:56:57 AM »
To me if the Suns gravitational force is strong enough to turn the comet completely around.  Then the comet should land almost directly into the center of the Sun. Not right next to it.
How about you stop thinking about what you imagine might happen and look at the maths of what should happen using Newtonian physics and comparing that to what we observe. If you do that you'll find that what we observe does match what the models predict will happen given the velocity of the objects and the forces in play. Your argument is basically that your intuition tells you one thing, science is telling you another so the science must be wrong. But sometimes things are a bit counter-intuitive. For example. You're going to a friend's house 10 miles away. You go the first 5 miles at 30 miles an hour. How fast do you need to go the remaining 5 miles so that your average speed is 60mph? The answer isn't what most people think it is just from their initial guess. Point being, some problems require a bit more thought.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15542
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2020, 11:26:44 AM »
When I first got here I was told that these were pieces of the firmament/dome
That's surprising to me. The firmament is not all that popular among FE'ers, and I don't think there are many firmament FE'ers who'd think that the dome is crumbling away.

@OP: A meteor is a meteoroid that's been heated to the point of incandescence as it entered the Earth's atmolayer. I'll save you the pedantry on meteoroids/meteors/meteorites, since it's clear enough what you mean even if you're mixing them up.

However, there is a much bigger problem with your query. It is unclear why you think objects in space would have no component velocities other than downward relative to the Earth, and you did not explain why you think they would.

Your premise that "everything from moon to stars is local and predictable" is incorrect, both on the "local" (some celestial bodies are local, others are not) and "predictable" (what does that even mean in this context?)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 11:40:56 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1364
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2020, 05:23:43 PM »
When I first got here I was told that these were pieces of the firmament/dome
That's surprising to me. The firmament is not all that popular among FE'ers, and I don't think there are many firmament FE'ers who'd think that the dome is crumbling away.

I found the thread where I thought I got that from and it was not there.  Oh well.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2020, 12:40:09 AM »
When I first got here I was told that these were pieces of the firmament/dome
That's surprising to me. The firmament is not all that popular among FE'ers, and I don't think there are many firmament FE'ers who'd think that the dome is crumbling away.

I found the thread where I thought I got that from and it was not there.  Oh well.

Storm is one who follows a firmament FE model. I'm not sure if his has a north pole center, ice wall, or a dome. He would have to tell you what he thinks meteors or meteorites are.

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2020, 09:53:10 AM »

Your premise that "everything from moon to stars is local and predictable" is incorrect, both on the "local" (some celestial bodies are local, others are not) and "predictable" (what does that even mean in this context?)

I think we'd have to first understand each others position here. I assume the FE community would generally agree that the firmament is some finite distance above the earth and everything is locally contained. There are some FE people that don't hold that position though, and you may be one of them, which may drastically change the discussion. I could be wrong in my assumption as well. Regardless, if there is a firmament, then shooting stars and rocks from "space" would have to be local, or inside the dome.

Predictability: There are some objects like junk satellites, some space debris, and some rocks/comets that we can track. Halley's comet for example (since y'all mentioned it) comes around every 75 years and will return next in 2061. Whenever it returns, a part of its debris field becomes fireworks for the observers on earth. Meteor shower events happen relatively frequently where they are predicted and observed.

There are some things we can't track, and as aforementioned, we are trying to make space travel safer and also find earth-ending sized rocks that are close by.

I think maybe your critique of my post is you think I'm saying we can predict all or most the shooting stars on an average night. We can't do that. Most of what we see are no larger than a pebble or grain of sand, and we can't track that. We can track bigger ones, and those typically come with a debris field that gets sucked into our gravity.

However, there is a much bigger problem with your query. It is unclear why you think objects in space would have no component velocities other than downward relative to the Earth, and you did not explain why you think they would.

I'm confused why you're confused... I said "non-vertical". Objects do enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle, not perpendicular to the earth. Perpendicular entry doesn't happen as earth tends to yoink objects out of their own orbit as they travel somewhat parallel to earth, so they enter at a very shallow angle. My problem with the theories thrown around in this thread is that there wouldn't be a large lateral velocity associated with any of the possible debris that could fall from the sky in a flat earth model. I'm not sure if the following statement will be conceded (but I'd be delighted to discuss it): most of the shooting stars you see are moving somewhere around 80,000mph, and a negligible amount of that velocity is towards the earth. For reference of the magnitude of the speed, you would personally burst into flames if you ran at 3,800mph or mach 5.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2020, 09:58:50 AM by ImAnEngineerToo »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15542
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2020, 11:51:55 AM »
I assume the FE community would generally agree that the firmament is some finite distance above the earth and everything is locally contained.
That assumption is false. Firmament FE'ers are hard to find, and when you do find them, they're usually the type of person that thinks everyone on the Internet is an FBI agent trying to deceive them. Exceptions obviously exist, but you'll find it difficult to find one.

Regardless, if there is a firmament, then shooting stars and rocks from "space" would have to be local, or inside the dome.
Granted, and I agree that the consequences of that would be tricky.

I think maybe your critique of my post is you think I'm saying we can predict all or most the shooting stars on an average night. We can't do that.
Fair enough. You said "everything" was local and predictable (without explaining why you think so), and I disagree with both of these claims - most "things" are neither local nor predictable. Now that you've clarified and it appears that you agree with me, I'll chalk that down to a misunderstanding.

I'm confused why you're confused... I said "non-vertical".
That's the confusing part. You seem to imply that, under FET, there should be no component velocity other than the vertical. You asked why there is a non-vertical motion occurring, and your phrasing seems to imply that you're seeing a conflict or contradiction there. What you didn't clarify, and I cannot even begin to guess, is why you would think that this motion would be exclusively vertical under FET.

To put things simply: you asked why X is not happening, but you didn't explain why X would ever be considered as even remotely plausible by your opposition.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

Re: Explain meteors
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2020, 07:17:23 PM »
To me if the Suns gravitational force is strong enough to turn the comet completely around.  Then the comet should land almost directly into the center of the Sun. Not right next to it.
How about you stop thinking about what you imagine might happen and look at the maths of what should happen using Newtonian physics and comparing that to what we observe. If you do that you'll find that what we observe does match what the models predict will happen given the velocity of the objects and the forces in play. Your argument is basically that your intuition tells you one thing, science is telling you another so the science must be wrong. But sometimes things are a bit counter-intuitive. For example. You're going to a friend's house 10 miles away. You go the first 5 miles at 30 miles an hour. How fast do you need to go the remaining 5 miles so that your average speed is 60mph? The answer isn't what most people think it is just from their initial guess. Point being, some problems require a bit more thought.

It’s a trick question because you’ve already been traveling for 10 minutes the same time you need to travel 10 miles to keep an average of 60mph.
 
I have a ball on a rope.  Extended the rope another 100 yards and pulled it to me. Repeated this dozens of times.  The ball came to the middle of the object pulling the rope every time. The source of the force. I can post a video of it if you like me too.