Rare daytime fireball bright enough to be seen from orbit may have punched a hole in a house in Georgia
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
A large meteor that triggered a spectacular daytime fireball over the southeastern U.S. may have survived its dramatic passage through Earth's atmosphere to punch through the roof of a Georgia home.
The fireball was spotted over the southeastern U.S. at 12:25 EDT on Friday, (1625 GMT), visibly flaring as the extreme heat of atmospheric friction overwhelmed the ancient chunk of solar system debris. Its descent was bright enough to be seen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAAs) GOES-19 Earth observation satellite, using an instrument designed to map flashes of lightning from orbit.
"Daylight fireballs are rare in that it takes a large object (larger than a beachball compared to your normal pea-sized meteor) to be bright enough to be seen during the day," said Robert Lunsford of the American Meteor Association in an email to Space.com. "We probably only average one per month worldwide, so perhaps one out of every 3,000 reports occurs during the day."
The meteor was first spotted 48 miles (77 kilometers) above the town of Oxford, Georgia travelling at around 30,000 mph (48,000 km/h), according to NASA Meteoroid Environment Office lead Bill Cooke, via CBS News. Lunsford noted that the fireball may have been associated with the daylight beta Taurid shower, which peaks in late June as Earth passes through the trail of cosmic debris shed by the ancient solar system comet 2P/Encke.
Footage of the event led many to speculate that fragments of the meteor may have survived its bruising passage through Earth's atmosphere. The hours that followed saw photos circulate online purporting to show the damage that a fragment of the meteorite caused when it smashed through the roof of a home in Henry County, Georgia.
"Being much larger than your average meteor also means that it has a better chance of producing fragments on the ground," explained Lunsford "We look for reports of sound such as thunder or sonic booms to have confidence that fragments of the original fireball survived down to the lower atmosphere and perhaps all the way to the ground. Therefore the photograph of the hole in the roof is probably associated with this fireball."
If verified, the Georgia meteorite certainly wouldn't represent the first time that a daylight beta Daylight Taurid left a mark on our planet. Lunsford noted that a particularly large meteor that some scientists believe to be associated with the annual shower detonated in a powerful airburst 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) over Russian Siberia in June 1908. The force of the explosion sparked massive forest fires and flattened roughly 80 million trees in what has since become known as the 'Tunguska Event'.
Editor's Note: If you capture a photo or video footage of a meteor and want to share it with Space.com's readers, then please send it, along with your name, comments, and details of your experience to spacephotos@space.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
It's Time To Change The Math Calculus: How The US Can Finally Get Math Education Right
Four schoolboys watch as their teacher points to a lesson on the blackboard. PISA scores reveal deep problems in how the United States teaches math. Here's what research—and top-performing countries—say needs to change Julie Fitz, Researcher at the Learning Policy Institute, contributed to this story In recent years, a much publicized 'reading crisis' has been a hot topic in the United States, but mathematics achievement tells a much more troubling story. In the 2022 Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), which tested students in 80 jurisdictions worldwide, U.S. 15-year-olds did comparatively well in both reading, ranking 7th among participating nations, and science, ranking 13th. However, U.S. students ranked lower than 30 other nations in math—well below the international average score. In contrast to the highest-achieving countries, U.S. performance is lower for both high and low achievers and shows wider achievement gaps associated with students' socioeconomic status—gaps that national data show have grown even wider since the pandemic. Beyond the scores, the United States has become a math-phobic nation, with many students coming to hate and fear mathematics and too few interested in continuing into mathematically rich fields of study. A recent RAND study found that only about 25% of middle and high school students found their math classes interesting most of the time, while half reported losing interest in math class half or more of the time and the remainder reporting they were rarely engaged by math. Many students had decided they were not a 'math person' before they even got to middle school. This problem has manifested as labor shortages for technical occupations in the United States, with many positions needing to be filled by individuals from other countries on H1B visas, which are increasingly in short supply. As a consequence, calls for reform in mathematics education have once again become widespread. However, efforts to rethink the U.S. math curriculum, instruction, and assessments have come and gone over many years, beginning with the post-Sputnik era in the 1950s, and recurring regularly since. Efforts to create a curriculum focused on deeper understanding of mathematical concepts (often called 'new math,' even though it's decades old) have warred with a status quo that favors rote memorization of basic math facts and the use of algorithms to solve problems that are not deeply understood. This status quo is reinforced by textbooks and tests wedded to a coverage curriculum that touches on many subjects in each grade level without delving deeply into any. At the high school level, the United States has clung to a math curriculum prescribed by a set of educators called the Committee of Ten, appointed by the National Education Association in 1892, the year Thomas Edison received a patent for the telegraph and long before computers, large-scale data, or new statistical methods were on the scene. These combined challenges have been partly responsible for generations of elementary teachers poorly prepared in math and often math-phobic themselves. Furthermore, decades of secondary math teacher shortages means that many positions have been filled by individuals teaching on substandard credentials who have inadequate preparation in math or pedagogy or both. In a high-demand field like mathematics, where college graduates can earn at least 50% more in industry than they can in education, the wage gap between teachers and other professions is particularly problematic, and it is difficult to fill positions with fully qualified teachers. All of this contributes to the widespread difficulties students experience in understanding math. Coupled with long-standing biases about who deserves access to math opportunities, the United States has a widely shared belief that only some people have the 'math gene' that allows them to succeed at math—and that most women and people of color do not have it. There is renewed urgency around math education—fueled by growing global economic competitiveness, equity concerns, and technological change. A number of states are seeking to update their math requirements, infusing more attention to computer science and data science. Councils of mathematicians and mathematics teachers have urged changes to modernize math, focus on big ideas, teach it in meaningful ways, and connect it to real-world problems. Some states, like California, have overhauled their entire math framework with these goals in mind. As this move requires changes in the textbooks and materials the state adopts, it may shift the broader curriculum market. The Gates Foundation is devoting a significant share of its massive giving to the improvement of math education across the country. As Bill Gates has noted, not many students share his love of math. The Gates Foundation's K–12 education strategy is focused on modernizing math education so that it connects to students' interests, abilities, needs, and goals; engages them in collaboration to find answers and communication about their problem-solving approaches; and applies to complex, real-world problems that students know exist outside the classroom, from designing a budget to estimating population growth. The goal is for every student to become a 'math person' and to be able to use the power of mathematics in every aspect of their lives. First, it might be useful to learn from the very different way in which math is taught in the highest-achieving countries, where outcomes are also much more equitable. In the four highest-achieving nations on PISA rankings—Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Estonia—mathematics is taught in heterogeneous classrooms, with no tracking prior to 10th grade. The curriculum tackles a small number of seminal topics in each school year—like ratio and proportion or the concept of integers—and teaches these deeply from multiple angles. These countries and many others present math in an integrated fashion with domains of mathematical study combined to allow for more robust conceptualization and problem-solving. For this reason, none of these countries teach the Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry sequence common in U.S. high schools, as prescribed by the Committee of Ten in 1892. In Japan, for example, Mathematics I, II, and III each combine elements of algebra, geometry, measurement, statistics, and trigonometry. As is also true in Singapore, the focus is on taking time for students to intently discuss and collaboratively solve complex problems that integrate the content—often just one complex problem in a class period—rather than memorizing formulas and applying rote procedures to multiple problems that isolate the mathematical ideas and challenge students' deep understanding. In both countries, reforms over the last decade have focused more intently on experiential and project-based learning and applications to real-world problems, adding data use across the grades. In Japan, when differentiation occurs in 10th grade to add greater challenge to the courses of advanced students, the curriculum remains similar, and both lanes allow students to reach advanced courses like calculus. A similarly integrated curriculum is used in South Korea, where a 'learner-centered' approach advanced by the Ministry of Education has focused mathematics on active engagement in problem-solving. In Estonia, the most rapidly improving country, reforms over the last decade have followed a similar path while focusing intensely throughout the grades on the use of computers and statistics for data analysis, using real-world problems to organize mathematical inquiry (Hõim, Hommik, and Kikas 2016). In all cases, these highly successful countries develop a more integrated curriculum organized around major concepts that are taught deeply, infused with real-world data and problem-solving, and taught to all students. Second, in addition to modernizing the mathematics curriculum, we need to support the development and use of high-quality instructional materials that reflect the integration of mathematical ideas, the use of real-world data to pose and solve problems, open-ended approaches to exploring problems using multiple methods, and robust mathematical discourse in the classroom. High-quality instruction also requires well-prepared, supported teachers. The curriculum will not teach itself. Teachers need extended opportunities to learn how to teach this kind of curriculum, beginning in preservice education and continuing throughout their careers. They need opportunities to develop both content knowledge and pedagogical skill through preparation programs and professional development that emphasize deep understanding and help teachers learn to create supportive, inclusive learning environments. Unlike the traditional 'sit and get' or drive-by workshops teachers often experience, professional learning needs to be ongoing and job-embedded, with opportunities for teachers to collaborate and learn from each other with support from skilled math coaches—a strategy used by many countries in updating their curriculum and adopted by California as part of its new math reforms. We also need to address the long-standing math teacher shortage. In the high-achieving countries noted earlier, teachers typically earn as much as other college graduates (Singapore pegs salaries to those of engineers), and are treated with great respect, so teaching is a desirable career. U.S. teachers, by contrast, earn about 25% less, on average, than other college-educated workers and have much more grueling work schedules—with more hours teaching students and less time for planning and collaboration. Pay differentials are even larger for fields like math, so filling teaching vacancies with fully qualified teachers is difficult, especially in schools serving large concentrations of students from low-income families, which are often under-resourced. These schools, as a result, offer fewer advanced courses and rely more heavily on uncertified teachers or substitutes who come and go. As was true for a brief time in the post-Sputnik era, the recruitment, retention, and training of teachers need urgent policy and funding attention. Research has shown that math isn't just about what we teach—it's about how we teach it. Classroom environments should foster curiosity, persistence, and collaboration. Instruction must reflect both powerful mathematical concepts and supports informed by the science of learning and development, recognizing students' social, emotional, and cognitive needs. A recent report from the Learning Policy Institute synthesizes research findings from the fields of mathematics teaching and learning, educational psychology, and the learning sciences to identify key classroom conditions that support K–12 math major principles emerge as key: There are compelling reasons on many levels to ensure all students are prepared and supported to excel in mathematics: to support our country's ability to be competitive in a global market, to prepare students at every level for the ever-increasing complexity of modern times, and to develop critical cognitive functioning. But at the heart of it, children should learn math because, as Francis Su said, 'To miss out on mathematics is to live without experiencing some of humanity's most beautiful ideas.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Body mass index (BMI) may not be the most accurate predictor of death risk. A new study from the University of Florida found that BMI — a measurement that is commonly used to determine whether a person's weight is in a healthy range for their height — is "deeply flawed" in terms of predicting mortality. Instead, one's level of body fat is "far more accurate," concluded the study, which was published this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. Bmi Is Wrong Way To Measure Obesity, Researchers Say To measure participants' body fat, the researchers used a method called bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which uses a device to measure the resistance of body tissue to a small electrical current. Over a 15-year period, those who had high body fat were found to be 78% more likely to die than those who had healthy body fat levels, researchers found. Read On The Fox News App They were also more than three times as likely to die of heart disease, the study noted. BMI — which is calculated by dividing weight by height, squared — was described as "entirely unreliable" in predicting the risk of death over a 15-year period from any cause. The study included 4,252 people in the U.S. and pulled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Men Face Higher Cancer Risk With This Specific Body Fat Measurement BMI should not be relied upon as a "vital sign" of health, according to senior author Frank Orlando, M.D., medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill. "I'm a family physician, and on a regular basis, we're faced with patients who have diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other conditions that are related to obesity," Orlando said in a press release for the study. "One of the routine measures we take alongside traditional vital signs is BMI. We use BMI to screen for a person having an issue with their body composition, but it's not as accurate for everyone as vital signs are," he added. BMI has been the international standard for measuring obesity since the 1980s, according to many sources, though some experts have questioned its validity. An individual is considered obese if their BMI is 30 or above, overweight if it is between 25 and 29.9, of "normal" weight in the range of 18.5 to 24.9, or underweight if lower than 18.5. While BMI is easy to calculate, one of its main limitations is that it cannot distinguish between muscle and fat mass, the researchers noted. "For example, people who are bodybuilders can really elevate their body mass index," Orlando said. "But they're healthy even with a BMI indicating that they're obese." "BMI is just so ingrained in how we think about body fat," Mainous added. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." Experimental Drug Helps Patients Lose Nearly A Quarter Of Body Weight In Early Trials Other methods, such as a DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan, may be even more accurate than BIA, but are much more expensive and not as accessible, the researchers noted. "If you talk to obesity researchers, they're going to say you have to use the DEXA scan because it's the most accurate," Mainous said in the release. "And that's probably true. But it's never going to be viable in a doctor's office or family practice." Dr. Stephen Vogel — a family medicine physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform with primary care, therapy and weight management options — echoed the limitations of BMI. "It has been an easy measurement tool that helps us understand at-risk groups across various populations and demographics, but it doesn't provide accurate data from patient to patient," the North Carolina-based doctor, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "These findings don't challenge the assumptions about BMI — they strengthen the message that new standards, delivered in a consistent and low-cost way, would provide better nuance for the individual when it comes to their overall physical health." "The main strengths of this study are a better correlation to an individual's risk of morbidity and mortality — however, the limitations lie in the fact that we don't have enough data to determine the right cutoff for these numbers, or to identify the right tools that will be both accurate and precise across the population," Vogel said. The researchers also acknowledged that body fat percentage thresholds haven't yet been as standardized as BMI and waist circumference. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Also, the age range of the participants in the study was limited by the data source. "Future studies should extend this comparison of body fat to BMI in older adults," the researchers wrote. The study was also limited by focusing only on mortality as an outcome, they noted, without taking into account any developing diseases — such as heart failure or cancer — that could deepen the understanding of body fat as a risk factor. The goal, according to Vogel, is to have a cost-effective, consistent method that can be used across the population with reliable accuracy. "Benefits would come in the form of a more detailed list of information that helps providers and patients make informed decisions about the patient's health, which is ideal," Vogel noted. "I'm hopeful there's enough buzz around these measures that steps will continue to be taken toward regular implementation." For more Health articles, visit The researchers are hopeful that once standards are validated, measuring body fat percentage with bioelectrical impedance analysis could become standard of care. They added, "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all."Original article source: Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Time Is Three-Dimensional and Space Is Just a Side Effect, Scientist Says
A fringe new theory suggests that time is the fundamental structure of the physical universe, and space is merely a byproduct. According to Gunther Kletetschka, a geologist — not a physicist, you'll note, but more on that later — from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, time is three-dimensional and the dimensions of space are an emergent property of it, a press release from the university explains. "These three time dimensions are the primary fabric of everything, like the canvas of a painting," Kletetschka said in the blurb. "Space still exists with its three dimensions, but it's more like the paint on the canvas rather than the canvas itself." Three-dimensional time is a theory that has been proposed before, though generally in pretty inaccessible terms. Similarly to the explanation for three dimensions of space — length, width, and depth — 3D time theory claims that time can move forward in the linear progression we know, sideways between parallel possible timelines, and along each one of those as it unfolds. Yes, it's a pretty mind-blowing concept — but scientists have long theorized that time, as the fourth dimension in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, is less intuitive than it seems in everyday reality. While other 3D time theories rely on traditional physics, Kletetschka suggests that his may help explain the many outstanding questions accepted physics still harbors. In a somewhat grandiose manner, the geologist even claims that his 3D time proposal could operate as a grand unifying theory or "theory of everything," the Holy Grail of quantum mechanics that would explain how the universe works on a sweeping level. "The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself," the scientist said. "This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework." Obviously, there are an astonishing number of caveats to consider here. For one, Kletetschka is not a theoretical physicist — he's a geologist, and according to his university bio he also has some experience in astronomy. Extraordinary claims all call for extraordinary evidence. And the claims here are already stirring controversy: as an editor's note added to the end of the press release cautions, the scientist's theory was published in the journal Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, a "legitimate step," but one that isn't remotely sufficient to take it out of the realm of the fringe. That journal, the note adds, is "relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals." "The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny," the note concluded, "and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication." Still, it's a fascinating concept to consider — especially because we still don't know exactly how time works, anyway. More on fringe theories: Physicists Say We Were Completely Wrong About How Gravity Works
