Comet over Antarctica?
- Thread starter Cosmos
- Start date
Nook
Dagobah Resident
Palinurus said:
That's what I was thinking as well.
MoonGlow said:
MoonGlow, while I wouldn't exclude the possibility that it wasn't a comet, I think it is very likely in this case based on the footage, even if it's it is extremely unlikely in general.
Any theories on what else it could have been?
sacriface
Jedi Master
It isn't impossible that it was a comet, but it might have been a strong aurora. Here's why I find it likely:
These cameras, just as any other digital camera, automatically adjust their sensitivity depending on the amount of light that comes in to the sensor at the moment.
If there is little light, the camera would increase it's receptivity to any amount of it, then when something appears that noticeably is brighter, but doesn't necessarily have to be drastically more so, it will appear as something much brighter than it would be in reality just because the camera didn't manage to adjust its sensitivity to new conditions.
Given that this is a form of stop-motion video, so is composed of long exposure photographs (every 10minutes) rather than continuous frames, this could be an aurora that 'burnt' into the photo for which the setting was adjusted just before it appeared.
There is less chance for it to catch a comet burst with this sampling rate (although nothing can be out ruled at this point ), and the shape of the light seems more like an aurora than an explosion, although that can be disputable..
These cameras, just as any other digital camera, automatically adjust their sensitivity depending on the amount of light that comes in to the sensor at the moment.
If there is little light, the camera would increase it's receptivity to any amount of it, then when something appears that noticeably is brighter, but doesn't necessarily have to be drastically more so, it will appear as something much brighter than it would be in reality just because the camera didn't manage to adjust its sensitivity to new conditions.
Given that this is a form of stop-motion video, so is composed of long exposure photographs (every 10minutes) rather than continuous frames, this could be an aurora that 'burnt' into the photo for which the setting was adjusted just before it appeared.
There is less chance for it to catch a comet burst with this sampling rate (although nothing can be out ruled at this point ), and the shape of the light seems more like an aurora than an explosion, although that can be disputable..
MoonGlow
Padawan Learner
I would go ahead and rule out man-made objects entirely. Any physicist worth his salt knows that the region over the poles is the easiest place to lose a rocket or satellite to outer space.
It is extremely unlikely that a comet or meteorite could pass so closely to earth from that direction without being attracted off its course and out of the solar system. The odds are so strongly against this that, were there no preexisting evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, a flying saucer would still be more likely.
Ocham's razor whittles the surviving options down to either aurora activity (which is quite common at the poles) or missile testing (which is forbidden by Geneva convention in Antarctica, but still quite common.)
It is extremely unlikely that a comet or meteorite could pass so closely to earth from that direction without being attracted off its course and out of the solar system. The odds are so strongly against this that, were there no preexisting evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, a flying saucer would still be more likely.
Ocham's razor whittles the surviving options down to either aurora activity (which is quite common at the poles) or missile testing (which is forbidden by Geneva convention in Antarctica, but still quite common.)
