Ive seen this claim a dozen times. It’s a disc shape. How this thing isn’t going to start flipping and curving its trajectory, or just plain old running out of energy due to air resistance, and not making it out of earth’s atmosphere is beyond me.
tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.
I don’t count having no visual indication of the object as “tracking” it, if we’re talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).
It’s important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.
Ive seen this claim a dozen times. It’s a disc shape. How this thing isn’t going to start flipping and curving its trajectory, or just plain old running out of energy due to air resistance, and not making it out of earth’s atmosphere is beyond me.
Take a coin and trow it as hard as you can. The curving is not that much.
Throw it into water or gelatin. At thousands of metres per second the air is going to seem much more dense.
I don’t have the arm strength to trow anything at the speed needed to make your analogy work.
If it’s like a frisbee, yeah, but it still curves. Now start it spinning like spinning a coin on edge. The curving will be much more dramatic.
It didn’t stay solid upon initial blast impact. Probably didn’t even stay liquid.
Yeah it vanished because it vaporized.
I think they were able to track it for at least 2 frames, thus calculate it’s speed.
Nope, just one frame. Adds to the myth, when people don’t know the exact speed.
tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.
Pretty sure that’s not really true though.
One frame before the blast and one frame after, but semantics.
I don’t count having no visual indication of the object as “tracking” it, if we’re talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).
It’s important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.
You can use the frame from before to calculate the MINIMUM speed. It could have been going even faster.
Or slower, depending on trajectory across the image.
It isn’t speed.
lol what