I just uploaded this one. You can see when the burst happens the Sun is gone and the sky is orange/yellow, the burst happens and the blue appear very bright and it set like the Sun... Look
Are you talking about the "burst of blue" at 1:30? Seriously, can't you see the image is completely pixelated? If this was an actual physical phenomenon, I'm sure that some of the loads of people moving in the image would have noticed as well.
Without going all wall of text on you, digital cameras that uses a CMOS or CCD sensors creates composite images, typically through 3 channels: Red, green and blue. Quote:
Photographic digital cameras that use a CMOS or CCD image sensor often operate with some variation of the RGB model. In a Bayer filter arrangement, green is given twice as many detectors as red and blue (ratio 1:2:1) in order to achieve higher luminance resolution than chrominance resolution. The sensor has a grid of red, green and blue detectors arranged so that the first row is RGRGRGRG, the next is GBGBGBGB, and that sequence is repeated in subsequent rows. For every channel, missing pixels are obtained by interpolation in the demosaicing process to build up the complete image. Also, other processes used to be applied in order to map the camera RGB measurements into a standard RGB color space as sRGB.
Remember that different colours operate at differente wave lengths. That means that the electronics in your camera have to adjust in an instant if there's a sudden change in the amount of incoming light. I think it's important that you read up on, and understand how digital cameras work before you use what is clearly artifacts of the digital processing within the camera as evidence for anything.
Now, to this:
Can you please explain to me how is it the camera adjusting to the "burst" when the sky doesn't change colors? I mean... This burst is happening with the Sun visible, with the Sun out of sight, it also happened to the moon in the morning and at night with the whole sky dark.
The camera is not adjusting to any "burst", it's adjusting to the amount of light hitting the sensors. This happens at night time as well. Even if the sun is out of your cameras view, it's light is still reflected on everything you observe. Remember, what you see, is the result of light reflecting off of it, and hitting your eyes. Sometimes, the amount of light varies. The atmosphere is not a void, it's literally a soup of gasses. The amount of molecules in our local atmosphere isn't uniform, this is why you have things such as low and high pressure. What you don't see at night time for instance, is the ice crystals in the upper atmosphere, regardless of the amount of visible clouds. This becomes even more illustrative as an example when you look at the moon on clear, frosty nights where you'll see a visible corona. You'll even see that standing below street lights and looking at them.
Do you think there are lens in space to "covered up incoming planets"? if so... where are those lenses located?
No, I don't. But given a spherical planet, with a gravity that keeps the atmosphere in place in a likewise spherical fashion, you will have light react to our soupy atmosphere in the same fashion as a lens, or a prism. Again, this is not uniform, since our atmosphere is not uniform. These effects can vary a great number of times in a matter of seconds, just like you see with a mirage or a fatamorgana. It's all a matter of temperature, humidity, the angle of light, air pressure and a myriad of other factors.
why don't they ever get hit by satelites or space junk? Those are genuine questions and I really wanna know.
Fair enough. Let's assume there were lenses in space. The Earth is huge. If you draw a circle (low earth orbit for instance) around earth, you will have a circle with an even greater circumference than earth it self. "Space junk" doesn't "just" collide for many reasons. Space junk in orbit at the same altitude will go more or less around earth at the same speed. Space junk in a higher orbit will go around earth slower. You will only have space junk colliding when they suffer from orbital decay, or have orbits with great variations in periapsis (lowest altitude of it's orbit) and apoapsis (highest altitude of it's orbit), thus crossing each others orbital paths.
one thing that I still don't get is why some lens flare move along with the light source and some don't??
A professional camera operator's first reaction to this would probably be observing his or her surroundings, looking for points that have very reflective surfaces. If Sunlight comes in from the right relative to the angle of your lens, and reflects off windows in a city on your left, there's a likelihood that you'll have lens flares originating from a source on your lefthand side. Lens flares are not a result of the Sun. Lens flares are the result of bright light scattering through your lens(es). Bright light can be interpretted arbitrarily, since light can be bright relative to your surroundings. That means, even street light in pitch black darkness is bright light for a digital camera sensor in that regard. Or even worse, the Moon. The Moon is pretty darn bright. If your camera sensor have to adjust for the incoming light directly from the moon, while at the same time adjusting from the moon light reflected off of your surroundings, you'll have artifacts in your photo's and video's as well.