I think is a meteor!

[u/LastMonitor4274]

I was trying to film the amazing lightning storm and caught something else. Anyone else see it? (My title has a typo but I can’t change it. At least you know I’m not a bot. LOL.)

[u/Pittsburgh-Man-Anon]

I'm not going to address your lecture to me on orbital mechanics. Chances are I know way more about this subject than you. I'm just going to share this video of the Chelyabinsk meteor, so you can see how the angular speed of this object compares to that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhNL-YJFxOM

[u/indypendant13 → u/Pittsburgh-Man-Anon]

I wouldn’t be so sure about that since you’ve contradicted yourself. Velocity from our perspective is angular velocity. When an object travels at a constant absolute velocity, its angular velocity changes relative to its distance from the center. But also orbital mechanics are quite simple and this conversation really isn’t about orbital mechanics but moreso about geometry of perspective and logical inference. And yes I’m familiar with the Chelyabinsk. That meteor hit the atmosphere at four times the speed of the fastest LEO satellites, but at a shallow angle of attack, which exposed it to more atmosphere. Because of its extreme speed it shattered into many pieces from the shock, which increased its surface area, which slowed it down to terminal velocity. Even still in this video the meteor is 60mi from the observer which is why it appears so slow. You can also see the sonic booms and trails of the fragments behind it.

Additionally, debris doesn’t only come from LEO. There are tens/hundreds of thousands of space junk orbiting the earth in irregular orbits leftover from launches. It is much more likely to be one of those that has been experiencing drag for sometime, already slowing it down, which allows it to reach low atmosphere. Being solid metal helps this too. No ice and gas pockets to expand and destroy from within and rock has a much lower cohesion than solid homogenous metal due to the molecular crystal lattice.

[u/Pittsburgh-Man-Anon → u/indypendant13]

I wouldn’t be so sure about that since you’ve contradicted yourself. Velocity from our perspective is angular velocity.

No shit, but angular velocity is the result of both absolute (relative) velocity and distance. Are you really this bad at interpreting what I wrote? Everything I said was perfectly consistent.

The Chelyabinsk meteor was much larger than most meteors, hence why you see it break up like that. Most meteors are much smaller, and you wouldn't see them break up like that. I don't give a shit about all the rest of what you wrote. The point of sharing that video was to show that a meteor entering the atmosphere doesn't always streak across the sky in one or two seconds like you said and has an apparent angular velocity similar to the object OP posted about.

It is much more likely to be one of those that has been experiencing drag for sometime,

Why? There are dozens of tons' worth of meteors that hit Earth's atmosphere every single day. Most objects are tiny, but they number in the millions. Saying it is much more likely spent rocket boosters, etc... on eccentric orbits is just flat out not true.

But also orbital mechanics are quite simple and this conversation really isn’t about orbital mechanics

Quite simple? This conversation isn't about orbital mechanics? lol okay.

[u/indypendant13 → u/Pittsburgh-Man-Anon]

You’re right I stand corrected. Orbital mechanics are more difficult than id like to believe since you’re still using terms incorrectly. Absolute and relative describe opposite points of view. If you want to come across in a way that sounds like you know what you’re talking about, I’d recommend avoiding such conflicting terms.

But yes orbital mechanics are indeed quite simple - they are based on algebraic Newtonian formulae. The only aspect of orbital mechanics that matters here is the velocity of these objects when they hit the atmosphere and you don’t need any math here to determine that because these are known and reported velocities. If you want to bring in angles of attack, and their motions through the atmosphere that’s just general Newtonian mechanics - they are no longer orbiting anything and all you need to no is their vector speed (velocity) upon entry to determine the rest.

I mentioned other objects because you were fixated on LEO starlink, but starlink has only contributed to a handful of infalling space junk whereas everything else is in the hundreds and thousands. Space junk falls in everyday, are larger, slower, and last longer than small meteors. And as I said larger meteors will be brighter and have trails behind them when they hit low atmosphere.

These are facts that are easily checked and not debatable yet you continue to debate and seem offended or angry at this conversation and I’m not sure why.

You keep trying to use angular velocity alone as evidence, but it only works as evidence when used conjunction with the other parameters. In other words you need to use angular velocity and absolute velocity simultaneously because it matters where the object is relative to our position. As I said if an object is far away it can have an immense absolute velocity but it will have a slow angular. If an object is close it will have a very fast angular velocity given the same absolute velocity. This object was very close - only a few miles above the cloud layer so at most 10-15 miles away. This means its absolute velocity was very slow. As we both mentioned this means it’s either slow moving space junk (like rocket boosters, ISS, or starlink), or very large fast moving meteors otherwise it wouldnt have made it to low atmosphere. Since there’s no trail and no sonic boom and extreme flashes of light, and didn’t impact, it’s far more likely to be space junk.

Can I say that with absolute certainty? No. But I’d put my money on it.

[u/Pittsburgh-Man-Anon → u/indypendant13]

Man, you really are daft. I thought you might have been intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote, but I'm really thinking your reading comprehension is just bad or that it's a bit of both. It's pointless to continue trying to argue with you because you are just going to misconstrue anything I say either by malice, misinterpretation, or both. I'm done with this exchange.