Meteor shower will be visible from Chicago suburbs

Aug 10, 2013
In this photo taken with long shutter speed, a meteor sparks, lower right, while entering the earth's atmosphere behind an olive tree during the Perseids Meteor Shower, in Fanos village, central Greece, on Saturday, Aug. 10, 2013. The Perseids are a prolific meteor shower associated with the comet Swift-Tuttle. The Perseids shower is visible from mid- July each year, with the peak in activity being between Aug. 9 and 14 depending on the particular location of the stream.(AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

A light show—the natural kind—will be playing in suburban Chicago.

The (Arlington Heights) Daily Herald (http://bit.ly/16CCz3g ) reports astronomers say scores of will blaze across the sky above the suburbs from Saturday night through the early morning hours of Tuesday.

If the clouds aren't too thick, the annual Perseid meteor shower will be easy to spot. Astronomer Larry Ciupik of the Adler Planetarium in Chicago says it would be a good idea to grab a lawn chair, face northeast and watch the show. As many as 100 meteors per hour are expected to hit the atmosphere.

There are a number of viewing parties scheduled across Illinois, including one at the Spring Valley Nature Center in Schaumburg and Cantigny Park in Wheaton.

Explore further: Mysteries of space dust revealed

5 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Perseid fireballs

Jul 30, 2013

In astronomy, there's nothing quite like a bright meteor streaking across the glittering canopy of a moonless night sky. The unexpected flash of light adds a dash of magic to an ordinary walk under the stars.

Geminid meteors set to light up winter sky

Dec 13, 2012

(Phys.org)—On the evening of 13 and the morning of 14 December, skywatchers across the world will be looking up as the Geminid meteor shower reaches its peak, in potentially one of the best night sky events ...

Perseid Meteor Shower Peaks Tuesday, Aug. 12

Aug 07, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- It's time once again for nature to put on its late-summer fireworks show: the Perseid meteor shower. This year's best viewing will be before dawn on Aug. 12, with a second chance after sunset ...

Perseid Meteors in 2012

Aug 08, 2012

This year’s Perseid meteor shower, already in progress, continues until about August 24th. The peak of activity is expected to occur around midday on August 12th, with a possible all-sky maximum of perhaps 50–100 ...

Recommended for you

Mysteries of space dust revealed

Aug 29, 2014

The first analysis of space dust collected by a special collector onboard NASA's Stardust mission and sent back to Earth for study in 2006 suggests the tiny specks open a door to studying the origins of the ...

A guide to the 2014 Neptune opposition season

Aug 29, 2014

Never seen Neptune? Now is a good time to try, as the outermost ice giant world reaches opposition this weekend at 14:00 Universal Time (UT) or 10:00 AM EDT on Friday, August 29th. This means that the distant ...

Informing NASA's Asteroid Initiative: A citizen forum

Aug 28, 2014

In its history, the Earth has been repeatedly struck by asteroids, large chunks of rock from space that can cause considerable damage in a collision. Can we—or should we—try to protect Earth from potentially ...

Image: Rosetta's comet looms

Aug 28, 2014

Wow! Rosetta is getting ever-closer to its target comet by the day. This navigation camera shot from Aug. 23 shows that the spacecraft is so close to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that it's difficult to ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2013
Sounds like an awe inspiring event, that is unless it turns into another Chicago Fire.
http://www.thunde...fire.htm
rug
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
These are meteor not comets. Meteorites cold to the touch by the time they reach the ground. Unless they are rather large. Then there would be a noticeable explosion from an air burst or a crater to show some kind of evidence. Fires were already burning in the area anyway. With a drought that had lasted basically all summer, the most logical explanation is a fire storm. Look at California currently and you will see that fire can break out in multiple places without a single source. CA is burning in the north, south, and central east. There was no comet or even a meteor.

You spend way to much time reading conspiracy theories and next thing you know everything is a conspiracy and everyone is after you. Watch out for the men in black. They might come and wipe your brain, or is that the NSA? Ah who knows anymore.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2013
"The Perseids /ˈpɜrsiːɨdz/ are a prolific meteor shower associated with the comet Swift-Tuttle."
Wiki
Sometimes comets disintegrate, such as Elenin, and those clouds continue to orbit, sometimes possibly encountering a body. Why is this a "conspiracy theory"? As the second story says;
"Amazingly, and with the aid of a startling and unpredicted meteor shower on November 27, 1872, Professor W. Klinkerfues of Berlin, calculated the trajectories of the meteoric falls, concluding that they were the remains of the comet (Biela). This, in turn led him to send instructions to Norman Pogson, Government Astronomer at the Madras Observatory in India. Pogson's answer to Klinkerfues, dated December 6, said he "found Biela immediately" on the first clearing of the sky, and on the second day he saw it again. It showed no tail, he said."

There is no certainty portrayed here, they are merely suggesting a common cause of the conflagrations which seems to have support from the evidence, and eyewitnesses
rug
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
Sometimes comets disintegrate, such as Elenin, and those clouds continue to orbit, sometimes possibly encountering a body


That is what generally causes meteor showers. Wow look at that, you learned so real science today. Congratulations!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2013
These are meteor not comets.


You are the only one claiming comets are responsible, I fail to grasp your point.
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
They are not comets which is correct. Once they hit the atmosphere they are called meteors. Once they hit the ground they are meteorites. Considering most comets are made of ice and dust it's very very rare to find meteorites from comets. They melt upon atmospheric friction.

Now most meteor showers are made up of left over pieces of comets. When they travel toward the inner solar system and closer to the sun they have a tendency to melt. This takes pieces off about the size of grains of sand grains and gases. The sun then lights these particles up causing a tail to form. This is why all comets tails point away from the sun no matter which way they are moving. Most of the time the comets you see do not hit the earth. They pass by harmlessly creating something really cool to look at. The dust they leave behind sticks in orbit around the sun just like everything else does. Depending on where and if they crossed Earths path we sometimes run into them creating a meteor shower.
rug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
Sometimes the comets get to hot or loose to much dust and gas and break up. This is another cause for meteor shows. Still same affect. Most of the pieces are tiny and melt upon hitting the atmosphere.

Basically the article you linked to was saying a comet was the cause of the Chicago fire of 1871. I was just pointing out that the fact that a comet did it was incorrect. The theory is interesting but has failed to hold up to scrutiny as I have already pointed out.

Maybe you should read the articles you link to? Oh, but what fun would a troll be if they did?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2013
By the tones of the comments, it's apparent it is not myself who is trolling. Both I and the article suggest merely the possibility. It should also be pointed out, the dirty snowball is a hypothesis with a rather miserable track record of prediction. The evidence suggests they are black asteroids under high electrical stress due to their eccentric orbit.
I also noticed in the linked articles the mention of the comet splitting, and no evidence of the second comet in the 1872 report. I believe that is the point being raised. The idea of the faster of the pair arriving sooner and no longer being a comet but the remains there of, in 1871 is what is being suggested.
I believe it is a fair question to ask about the eyewitness accounts; "A spectator of the terrible scene says the fire did not come upon them gradually from burning trees and other objects to the windward, but the first notice they had of it was a whirlwind of flame in great clouds from above the tops of the trees..."
rug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
that is unless it turns into another Chicago Fire


That clearly says the link sates what caused the fire. Which it did not. They theory had already been disproved.

the dirty snowball is a hypothesis with a rather miserable track record of prediction


Yet, that is exactly what they found when they took a sample of one.
http://stardust.j...116.html

A spectator of the terrible scene says the fire did not come upon them gradually from burning trees and other objects to the windward, but the first notice they had of it was a whirlwind of flame in great clouds from above the tops of the trees...


You ever see an out of control fire come at you?
"flames leaping 300 feet high meet in an arch extending from one hill top to the other. A fierce gust of wind would strike the summit and flames would leap clear across from one summit to the other in one continuous stream of fire for a distance of over a half mile."
http://www.idahof...res2.htm
rug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
I don't know about you but that sounds about the same. Getting back on point...

This article is a bout a meteor shower, of small dust particles that make pretty little lights in the sky. Not about a supposed comet that didn't start the Chicago fire of 1871. Get over promoting the electric universe pseudoscience (which is the page you linked to in the first place) and enjoy the light show.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2013
But it says nothing for the " pitiless rain of fire and sand", "great balls of fire unrolling and shooting forth, in streams", the "balloons of fire" falling from the sky.
rug
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
But it says nothing for the " pitiless rain of fire and sand", "great balls of fire unrolling and shooting forth, in streams", the "balloons of fire" falling from the sky.


WOW, completely missed the whole point of the whole there didn't you?

The point is you made another false claim on an article about nothing but some pretty lights in the sky. Why is it so hard to just take the information given in an article like this, get out the lawn chair, and enjoy the show?

Besides, I don't have to prove the theory incorrect. It's already been done.
http://www.firese...met.html
http://www.badast...ire.html]http://science.na...ire.html[/url]
http://www.badast...ire.html

Here is a site I really thing you should look it. Who knows, you just might learn some more real science today. http://www.badast...ogy.html
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
Sorry looks like my links got a little mixed up there where is the one that is not clickable.
http://science1.n...27jul_1/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2013
If you'll note, at the bottom of the linked article, there is an additional link. Sorry, seemed apparent to me.
"The Chicago Fire (2) Where was Comet Biela?"
http://www.thunde...iela.htm
And again at the bottom of that page;
"The Chicago Fire (3) Human Testimony Reconsidered"
http://www.thunde...fire.htm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2013
I also find it rather funny you're stardust link, the article which lists some of the "surprises" encountered by the mission. Ironically, predictions by Wal Thornhill were far more successful.
http://www.thunde...ions.htm
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
But it says nothing for the " pitiless rain of fire and sand", "great balls of fire unrolling and shooting forth, in streams", the "balloons of fire" falling from the sky.

Spoken like someone who has made no effort whatsoever to read the fire literature. Where I live, forest fires regularly form smoke columns and mushroom clouds like natural atomic bombs. The fires have been known to lift entire burning logs into the air. Everything you've mentioned resembles known fire behavior.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
I also find it rather funny you're stardust link, the article which lists some of the "surprises" encountered by the mission. Ironically, predictions by Wal Thornhill were far more successful.
http://www.thunde...ions.htm

And I find it appalling that you completely ignore the lessons learned from Hayabusa, which successfully touched an asteroid and returned with a sample without being destroyed by some cosmic lightning bolt.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2013
I fail to see what smoke and Hayabusa have to do with anything.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
I fail to see what smoke and Hayabusa have to do with anything.

I know. That's exactly my point. You'll always fail to see anything that proves you wrong.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
Well, the smoke rings you claim prove me wrong do nothing of the sort, the reported phenomena were unusual, regardless of your ridiculous denial. Oh, and JA, no member of EUT ever predicted or even considered a "cosmic thunderbolt" coming from an asteroid, that is your own feeble mind working overtime.
rug
3 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
I know. That's exactly my point. You'll always fail to see anything that proves you wrong.


Couldn't have said it any better myself. cantdrive seems to fail to see anything that resembles truth, evidence, proven facts. I've also noticed when someone makes a comment that proves cantdrive to be completely wrong. He will focus on some small wording and try to manipulate it to make is seem as though you are lying or don't know what you are talking about. He ask for evidence he is wrong and then ignores what you provide. While it can be fun to go around for a little bit he is nothing but a troll or some evangelico believer where the electric universe has become his religion. Like most religions when confronted with true completely ignores it or says it's wrong without consideration.

cantdrive=religious zealot

He might as well be saying god made the universe. It's the same logical fallacy.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
He ask for evidence he is wrong and then ignores what you provide.

In the same notion, you provide one little nugget then claim that's the end of discussion. Take for example, the eyewitness evidence. You gave a reasonable explanation for the fire coming above the trees. That in no way resolves the follow up question about "balloons of fire" or other odd phenomena such as the St. Elmo's Fire or the "fused iron, glass, and granite" or exploding basements. There are many aspects of the event that your "proof" does not resolve, it is only a myopic viewpoint that sees your "proof" as being the answer.
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
I didn't just provide one little nugget. I provided a few different links which of course link to other sites that give real scientific evidence that the whole claim is false to start with. I don't have to discount the eye witness accounts. I witness accounts are notoriously flawed. The science behind the fact it wasn't a comet has already been proven. However, you ignored the evidence, and completely ignored the fact this article has nothing to do with any of it.

Not to mention, once again you took one little piece of wording and tried to manipulate to make is look like I'm a lair once again. Doing nothing but proving my point in that post to begin with.

Sense you have basically degraded to calling me a liar once again when I've already proved you wrong. This topic has now lost it's appeal. I will be moving along now.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2013
Yep, I guess your bunch of anecdotal evidence trumps the eyewitness and physical evidence. The bad astronomy does indeed contain volumes of bad astronomy and science. And the refutation by NASA is based on equally flawed reasoning and a miserably inaccurate hypothesis about comets. No "impact" crater is needed, that's just a wild assumption, and by eyewitness accounts both a large boom was heard/felt and "fire came from the sky" so one of the arguments is a red herring. Most of the arguments can be disassembled in the same way, logical fallacies abound.
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
So wait, let me get this strait. You are saying NASA has flawed reasoning?

There are thousands of people that have worked/still work at NASA. Most if not all of them are way smarter then the average human. Now, with all them them super smart people working at/for/with NASA you have the nerve to say NASA has flawed reasoning? I think you just might want to look at the mirror and think real hard about what you just claimed.

You can claim I'm wrong, you can claim I have false logic, and you can even claim I'm just making stuff up. All of which you have done. But to say that YOUR reasoning is better then some of the top minds in the US put together proves you are so full of yourself that no one will ever be able to teach you anything. To your mind you will always be right no matter what evidence is presented.

I feel sorry for anyone that has to put up with such a pompous ass attitude on a regular basis.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
How dare I suggest such a thing! Oh, the pompous ass I am!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

The "dirt snowball" is a complete failure of a hypothesis, yet I should readily accept all the various denouncements/hypotheses derived from it? That's the failed reasoning of which I speak of, not to mention a failure to accept a modicum of doubt and claim it has been "proved". From the start, I have maintained this as being merely a possibilty, and pointed to questions not easily explained as it was implicitly described by eyewitnesses.
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
Listen here you jackass, it's simple. Questioning science is one thing it should be questioned. That is the point of science. To question, look for answers.

However, saying thousands of people should yield to your reasoning because yours is better is narcissistic. Keep in mind these are the same people that reasoned a way to put someone on the moon. Reasoned a way to get rovers on Mars to study the possibility of life. I'm talking some of the smartest people around.

Could they possibly be wrong, well yes. However, unlike you, NASA has never make any kind of claims without the scientific evidence to back it up.

Where is your proof comets are made of more than dust and ice and the dirty snowball is wrong? You have none! There has never been any missions to a comet that has found more than dust and ice. NASA has been there, taken samples, returned them to earth, and given multiple scientist a chance to study them. There is proof comets are mainly ice and dust.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
Where is your proof comets are made of more than dust and ice and the dirty snowball is wrong? You have none!

There you go with the "proof" fallacy. There is mountains of evidence that supports the electric comet model, the only "proof" against it is denial. I have yet to see a comet that didn't look just like an asteroid (close-up).

The guys of the EU would actually like feedback (constructive and scientific) about their video 'The Electric Comet', I doubt that's available here though.
http://www.youtub...tt2EUToo
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
There you go with the "proof" fallacy.


Calling proof a fallacy is something only religions do.

There is mountains of evidence that supports the electric comet model, the only "proof" against it is denial.

I have seen no convincing evidence that stands up to scrutiny for the electric comet or the electric universe theories. Denial is proof of denial. Denial of facts is proof of stupidity.

I have yet to see a comet that didn't look just like an asteroid (close-up).

You're right! They do look very similar when the comets tail is not showing. This is due to the fact they are covered in the same dust. Some asteroids are clumps of dust and ice as well. So yes, it makes sense they would look very similar. Look at the moon, it looks very similar as well. Almost every astronomical body looks about the same if it doesn't have an atmosphere.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
Calling proof a fallacy is something only religions do

Calling what you have as "proof" is a fallacy, I have yet to see any definitive "proof" that contradicts what has been proposed.

I have seen no convincing evidence that stands up to scrutiny for the electric comet

You obviously didn't watch the video. It seems the real comet scientists at JPL and NASA are a whole lot more confused about the situation than you are, maybe you should give them a call and explain to them how dirty snowballs create x-rays. There's about 50 other "mysteries" you'll have to cover as well, but don't check your textbook. As one of the investigators said; "it seems all the textbooks are wrong" or something of that sort.
http://www.youtub...tt2EUToo
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2013
I fail to see what smoke and Hayabusa have to do with anything.

Take a careful look. You were trying to post a link to the Stardust mission but linked instead to Deep Impact.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2013
I fail to see what smoke and Hayabusa have to do with anything.

Take a careful look. You were trying to post a link to the Stardust mission but linked instead to Deep Impact.

I don't think you take a careful look at anything. It was a link to SUCCESSFUL predictions which included predictions about Stardust and Deep Impact among other things. Do you actually read anything, or do you just look at all the squiggly lines and pick up bit and pieces?
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2013
I did watch the video and it was full of misrepresentations of what was found. Yes, they found many things that were surprising and plenty of things that have made it clear we don't know everything. Which is always the case when you do something new. However, what they did find was ice (not a lot water ice but still ice) and lots of dust. Now, what this dust consisted of was a surprise but it's still dust. If you had bothered to read the mission report yourself you would have known this.

NASA-Comet X-Rays - "One preliminary theory is that X-ray emission from the Sun was absorbed by a cloud of gaseous water molecules surrounding the nucleus of the comet, and then were re-emitted by the molecules in a process physicists call "fluorescence....A second possible explanation is that the X-rays are produced from the violent collision between the comet material and the supersonic "wind" of plasma and particles streaming away from the sun." http://heasarc.gs...take.htm
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2013
Looks like they already have ideas to test on what the cause is.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2013
I did watch the video and it was full of misrepresentations of what was found.

Really? I'm curious what the misrepresentations were? They largely used statements from scientists involved in the mission, do these experts not know something you do? Seems NASA would put their top experts on such important missions, yet all they could say was" everything we thought we knew was totally wrong".
It should also be noted, any fool can come up with an explanation after the fact, the true worth of any hypothesis is it predictive ability. The plasma DL (double layer) which forms around the comet can easily create x-rays, it's very predictable, yet so much confusion among the "scientists" arises because they don't understand electric discharge phenomena in plasma. BTW, the solar "wind" is also an electric discharge (electric current), but understanding it and explaining it properly will open a big can of worms the metaphysicists wouldn't be able to resolve.
rug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2013
First you say
And the refutation by NASA is based on equally flawed reasoning and a miserably inaccurate hypothesis about comets


Now you say
Seems NASA would put their top experts on such important missions, yet all they could say was" everything we thought we knew was totally wrong


So which is it? Are they using flawed logic or are they correct?

The misrepresentations in the video were quotes taken completely out of context and added with other quotes taken out of context to make it appear to mean something it was not. You do this all the time so I'm sure you see no failure in the representation. It's using the same flawed logic you use to make you flawed points on this site. What the video didn't put in was the evidence against it's theories that was found by the same mission.

That is proof enough for me that it's just a religion and not science. Real science acknowledges when there is evidence against a theory.
rug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2013
I'm done with this whole thing. You don't bother to read what I've linked to. We are never going to agree. You won't see logic and I will not believe in your religion. So I'm done.

I just can't believe somehow, a simple article about a really cool meteor shower turned into a debate of the "electric universe" religion.

I will end my part in this with a simple statement of opinion that can't be argued with.

The meteor shower this article was talking about really was amazing to watch. I loved every minute I could spare to watch it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2013
First you say
And the refutation by NASA is based on equally flawed reasoning and a miserably inaccurate hypothesis about comets

Yes, NASA scientists are refuting the claims based upon the currently held model of comets.

Now you say
Seems NASA would put their top experts on such important missions, yet all they could say was" everything we thought we knew was totally wrong


So which is it? Are they using flawed logic or are they correct?

The same model the the "experts" within NASA claim are incorrect, there is nothing contradictory in my statements. The models are admittedly incorrect and and it is false logic to dismiss ANY possibilities based upon incorrect models.

The misrepresentations in the video were quotes taken completely out of context


How can you possibly know this? Did you read all the related papers? These guys are requesting an honest scientific discourse, I doubt they'd be foolish enough to make such a contrived error.