Starship Asterisk*

by **bystander** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:12 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:Any 2D point on the surface of a sphere can be considered the center of the 2D "plane" that is the surface. Similarly, any 3D point on the 3D "surface" of a 4D universe can be considered the center. This is the standard model of the Universe.

Thanks, Chris! I had to not think about that for a while. While re-reading your post over coffee this morning, the picture snapped into view and I had to say "Well, DUHH!"

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:21 pm

bystander wrote:OK, Chris, I bite. I have to admit I appreciate your observations and explanations, sometimes I can even see where they're going before you get there. Most of the time they confirm what my limited expertise(?) has led me to believe. Now, I think I would like to see your explanation of how any point can be considered the center of a universe that has no center.

Any 2D point on the surface of a sphere can be considered the center of the 2D "plane" that is the surface. Similarly, any 3D point on the 3D "surface" of a 4D universe can be considered the center. This is the standard model of the Universe.

by **bystander** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:48 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:... It's likely in the center of the entire Universe, as well, since- in three dimensions- any point in the Universe can be considered the center.

OK, Chris, I bite. I have to admit I appreciate your observations and explanations, sometimes I can even see where they're going before you get there. Most of the time they confirm what my limited expertise(?) has led me to believe. Now, I think I would like to see your explanation of how any point can be considered the center of a universe that has no center.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:26 pm

bystander wrote:Yes, it would have to be the center of the observable universe since our observations are made from here.

That it's in the center of the observable Universe is self evident. It's likely in the center of the entire Universe, as well, since- in three dimensions- any point in the Universe can be considered the center.

But that's a discussion best handled in a different thread.

by **bystander** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:19 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:Of course, in a very real sense, the Earth likely is in the center of the Universe. It's just not unique in that respect.

Yes, it would have to be the center of the observable universe since our observations are made from here.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:14 pm

bystander wrote:I suppose next you'll tell me that earth isn't the center of the universe.

Of course, in a very real sense, the Earth likely is in the center of the Universe. It's just not unique in that respect.

by **bystander** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:09 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:It has also served to bring to light, the shear numbers of ignorant people that there are in the world. (and might serve to identify them) Evident in the Flat Earth Society, and Moon Landing Hoaxers

Are you trying to say the earth isn't flat?

I suppose next you'll tell me that earth isn't the center of the universe.

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:33 pm

It has also served to bring to light, the shear numbers of ignorant people that there are in the world. (and might serve to identify them) Evident in the Flat Earth Society, and Moon Landing Hoaxers

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:42 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Understanding that the Northern Lights are caused by Solar activity rather than Gods.

Well, I think we had already figured that out without space exploration!

ETC.
ETC.
ETC.

And then some.

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:25 pm

bystander wrote:
PassionateBomba wrote:Cutting to the chase, can you tell us what those 100s of billions of $$$TAX$$$ has benefited humanity?
Tang (I was just going to mention that too)

What HAS come out of space exploration either directly or indirectly is now veing seen in the gradual and eventual demise of communism in the former Soviet Union and greater cooperation between countries for construction of the next generation of space platforms. i.e. Sky Lab & MIR vs. the ISS.

The removal of the Berlin Wall

Civic unrest in Communist China that WILL eventually bring about the ultimate end of Communism world wide.

Technologies like LoJack

Cell Phones (ok debateable benefit there)

GPS locaters (Garmin, TomTom, etc)

Understanding that the Northern Lights are caused by Solar activity rather than Gods.

ETC.
ETC.
ETC.

by **bystander** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:38 pm

PassionateBomba wrote:Cutting to the chase, can you tell us what those 100s of billions of $$$TAX$$$ has benefited humanity?

Tang

Chris Peterson wrote:The Universe is a bright, colorful, and exciting place!

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:36 am

PassionateBomba wrote:That I completely disagree with. You like the word transform. I think the correct word is ALTER.

I use the word "transform" because it accurately describes the typical process used in scientific image processing. No new data is created. You can take the transformed image and reverse what you did to get back to the original.

The data displayed by the 'actual' photo has Holmes in shades of gray. It does not enhance our senses even a tiny bit, to change dark gray to black and light gray to white. It falsifies the data and creates a false image, and leads to false perceptions, e.g. where does that bright light come from?

Perhaps it can create confusion amongst those who don't have experience working with such images. But if you want to understand the comet, it is the gray image that leads to false perceptions. It appears gray because of the limitations of our eyes. Stretching the contrast to the full range of our eyes, and seeing the true color, do enhance our senses and let us understand things about this comet that we otherwise couldn't. The same is true for deep sky images of galaxies and nebulas. We would know very little about these objects if we were restricted to our eyes and telescopes. It is because we can image objects, stretch their contrast, and view them in colors that have physical meaning that we have learned so much. The goal of scientific imaging isn't to produce pretty pictures, or pictures that mimic what our eyes see. The goal is to enhance our understanding of the objects we image. The fact that the images are aesthetic as well is a happy side effect.

Some of the APODs actually state they are false images, this one did not.

It did state that special processing was used to enhance the detail in the core.

However it appears to mislead the public that it is a bright, colorful, and exciting place.

The Universe is a bright, colorful, and exciting place!

Cutting to the chase, can you tell us what those 100s of billions of $$$TAX$$$ has benefited humanity? We won't mention the needless starvation and poverty in the wake. Just a simple, "Our investment in stargazing has solved all of mankind's problems" will suffice.

I've never bought the argument that we can't spend money on certain things just because other things need money as well. In my opinion, the money spent on the scientific exploration of the Universe, both from Earth and space, and to a lesser extent the money spent on manned space exploration, has been money very well spent. I wish we'd spend more.

by **Pete** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:49 am

I hate to butt into this exchange between you and Chris Peterson, but please don't go pinning humanity's failures on science funding. Sure, we've got more problems right here on Earth than we know how to begin to solve: disease, environmental problems, starvation, wars, corrupt governments that lead to starvation and wars, etc. So what - do we stop funding all space-related research until these are solved and the world lives in perfection? These problems, the social ones especially, will always exist, regardless of how much money is thrown at them.

Since you use the world wide web and presumably a computer, you already owe a lot to the space program's spin-off innovations, and to "pure science" that wasn't done to benefit humanity directly, but to advance knowledge. Heck, speaking of knowledge, the great mathematicians of yore came up with all sorts of crazy sh*t that turned out to be critically useful hundreds of years later. Someone's got to design the vehicles used by aid workers and doctors...

PassionateBomba wrote:We have the same senses as Neanderthal.

Sure, but as Mr Peterson may also mention, his point was that we have better tools.

PassionateBomba wrote:And it thanks its creator it is far far away from our reach!

Don't talk about the Universe as though it were sentient; it hates that.

Also, could you explain again how your wonderful view of our unimaginable universe is superior to digitally processed science images?

by **PassionateBomba** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:04 am

Hello Chris,

"By applying a set of mathematical transforms, a new image was created..."
"This wasn't invented mathematically- it is real..."

You are kidding right?
I have a wonderful view of our unimaginable universe.
But I'm not the one trying to put lipstick on the pig.

100s of billions $$$TAX$$$ since '69, and 30,000 children a day die of malnutrition, and we have a mathematical transform?! WOW! Go tell it from the highest mountain!!!

"You seem not to understand that we have developed ingenious tools that extend our senses."

We have the same senses as Neanderthal.
I love the universe Chris, its human agenda that I have the problem with.

"We needed to do this because the Universe is so much richer than our simple senses alone can deal with."

And it thanks its creator it is far far away from our reach!

"The colorful images you have problems with do not create data; they transform it from a form that is hard for us to process (such as a table of numbers) to a form that we are equipped to deal with- sight or sound."

That I completely disagree with. You like the word transform. I think the correct word is ALTER. The data displayed by the 'actual' photo has Holmes in shades of gray. It does not enhance our senses even a tiny bit, to change dark gray to black and light gray to white. It falsifies the data and creates a false image, and leads to false perceptions, e.g. where does that bright light come from?; the very topic of this thread. Some of the APODs actually state they are false images, this one did not.
Lets not forget, APOD is a promotional device. The design is to share with the TAX paying and supporting public. However it appears to mislead the public that it is a bright, colorful, and exciting place. Its role in garnering public support therefore financial support, is not published to my knowledge. I do know that those I have treated to the link, faces light up and the sound of their excitement is unmistakable, and the money continues to roll in, for spacecraft, astronomers, and graves.
(Unless the moon is made of oil and the dark side is really covered in an endless sea of corn, don't even humor me with thoughts of travel. The time of our Earth to support human life at 6billion and growing WILDLY, will be far exhausted before that technology. We will just have to be satisfied with the newest version of photoshop TRANSFORMing our data pictures.) Yes, I find that sad indeed!

Cutting to the chase, can you tell us what those 100s of billions of $$$TAX$$$ has benefited humanity? We won't mention the needless starvation and poverty in the wake. Just a simple, "Our investment in stargazing has solved all of mankind's problems" will suffice.

You are obviously extremely intelligent and talented, demonstratively resourceful, and you have my respect in regards to this conversation, but perhaps a bit of a priority conflict. Clearly our agendas are out of sync!

Love and charity always
PB

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:16 pm

PassionateBomba wrote:Gosh this is beginning to take on the appearance that space is all in the imagination of mathematicians. Calculations of wobbles and strobes that indicate something is there.
It seems to take trick photography, artist renditions, and graphic designers to convince us.

...

I am truly let down, crushed that my beloved universe is a dark cold empty bland environment, brought to life only by the talent rendered by some night school photography classes down at the community college. Worse is that it is the dependency of our greatest scientific minds. Whoa is me!

I think you have a rather sad view of the Universe. What does it mean to be "cold", "empty", or "bland"? Perhaps you judge by the wrong standards. The Universe is, on average, cold by human standards. Does that matter? It probably has far more volume lacking matter than containing it, but gosh, where you find matter it can be spectacular. And "bland"? Not to me!

You seem not to understand that we have developed ingenious tools that extend our senses. We needed to do this because the Universe is so much richer than our simple senses alone can deal with. Using such tools is not cheating, trickery, or any such thing. The colorful images you have problems with do not create data; they transform it from a form that is hard for us to process (such as a table of numbers) to a form that we are equipped to deal with- sight or sound. The Holmes images I posted should have demonstrated this. The first image gave an indication of what our eyes could tell us. But there remained much that was below the threshold of detection. By applying a set of mathematical transforms, a new image was created that enhanced these details, allowing us to see structure that would otherwise be invisible. This wasn't invented mathematically- it is real, and multiple processing techniques can be used to demonstrate that fact.

It is a wonderful thing to live is such a rich universe, and at a time when we finally have the intellect and tools to make some real headway in understanding it!

by **PassionateBomba** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:41 pm

Hi Bamone

Gosh this is beginning to take on the appearance that space is all in the imagination of mathematicians. Calculations of wobbles and strobes that indicate something is there.
It seems to take trick photography, artist renditions, and graphic designers to convince us. When the first man walked on the moon, conspiracy nuts said it was filmed on a Hollywood set. Hmmmm!
Do you think that all this dazzlement is designed to bolster public support for government $$$$

?
It would Not be too surprizing,
the evil GWBush home is light years more enviro-friendly
http://edc.uoregon.edu/node/572
Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” about 4000 sqft.
than Al Gore
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
"Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity at his house last August, a rate that is TWICE the level used by an average U.S. household in an ENTIRE YEAR." About 10,000sqft and Thats August, not February!
Belle Meade, is the nation's fifth-richest town according to the 2000 Census.
He won the Nobel Peace prize for his Environmental stand. Seems political motivation (ie GREED) has surpassed the speed of light and its pervasiveness.

But now we digress OT.
MY purpose was to understand the bright light seeming to emit from Holmes core in the APOD. When I ask why we can't see something that is suppose to be there, I have received "too much dust". When I see something and ask how it can be, I receive, "not enough dust or techno-enhancement".

On another board, I see "experts" arguing among themselves what something really is, based of course in these same calculations. I suppose if and when they reach a consensus, there will be some way to manifest a photograph of it. Technology is truly advanced that we can take a picture of our imagination! Like so many products seen on TV, the camera tells the story, while integrity panhandles on the curb. (Consider the source; the Earth is flat, the Moon came from the Pacific Ocean, man is really a monkey, and other great scientific discoveries from the past) After all, amid all of the fantastic mathematical showmanship in the world of advanced science, the technology showing real advancement and benefit to us all, is still based in "0" and "1".

I have always wanted to see, my belief that my blindness was a result of my lack of equipment. That we could spend billion$$$ and have equipment providing a means for us all to see and celebrate what's out there, was $$$ well spent toward the advancement of mankind. Alas, it seems that yet another group of non-productive intellectuals, has found the keys to the Treasury and their toy boxes will be filled with the latest and greatest gadgets the 21st Century has to offer, sitting on pins and needles waiting for the newest version of PhotoShop to provide evidence of its worth.

I am truly let down, crushed that my beloved universe is a dark cold empty bland environment, brought to life only by the talent rendered by some night school photography classes down at the community college. Worse is that it is the dependency of our greatest scientific minds. Whoa is me!

But it is not like humans could EVER find a means to leave this rock, our destiny written in the cold hard granite of our abode, but while endless resources are committed to a game that seems to have no goal, we are at 6billion and growing, 30,000 children a day die of malnutrition,
http://www.care.org/campaigns/world-hun ... &WT.srch=1
and there isn't much granite left.

Bamone said, "if you could get your eye to gather light for some minutes prior to refreshing the image in your mind. Unfortunately, your vision is refreshed in your brain an average of 30 times a second". Now we know why we never saw Santa Claus. You have to keep your eyes open,

!!! But a couple of nights a week at CC for 6 weeks, and you will be able to take a picture of him to dazzle your friends.

Sadly in closing

Merry Christmas Holmes. Thanks, and have a safe trip!
PB

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:51 am

PassionateBomba wrote:Stunning!!! Bravo, Bravo.
A scientific knowledge base, with the ability and willingness to share with the humble masses. Thank you Chris, you're a gem in a river of stones!
You're explanation is very acceptable indeed, and the props are fantastic.

Might I for a moment draw your attention to this APOD;
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070731.html
I had thought it was time lapsed. Is it doctored (concocted) to simulate the glow of the galactic center? Remember I had asked why we couldn't see that glow and you responded, "More correctly, thousands of light years of dust is able to block out virtually all visible light from more distant stars."

The galactic glow in that image is exactly what could be seen, naked eye, if you could get your eye to gather light for some minutes prior to refreshing the image in your mind. Unfortunately, your vision is refreshed in your brain an average of 30 times a second. If you take a camera, and leave the aperture open for a period of minutes while mounted on a tracking tripod, you will get this same image because the film is allowed to gather more light than your eye can.

PassionateBomba wrote: Now then, this APOD
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070712.html
This pic says it is "relatively rich in foreground stars because it looks out near the crowded center of the Milky Way."
This seems that the galactic center is so clear, not only could you see it, but right through it, and 80 million light years beyond it.

(snip)
Thanks Chris
PB

The first image is taken from a camera with no zoom but rather a wider angle, while the second is taken through a telescope that is only allowing the viewing area that is about the width of the laser beam but magnified to show more distant detail.

by **PassionateBomba** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:09 am

Stunning!!! Bravo, Bravo.
A scientific knowledge base, with the ability and willingness to share with the humble masses. Thank you Chris, you're a gem in a river of stones!
You're explanation is very acceptable indeed, and the props are fantastic.

Might I for a moment draw your attention to this APOD;
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070731.html
I had thought it was time lapsed. Is it doctored (concocted) to simulate the glow of the galactic center? Remember I had asked why we couldn't see that glow and you responded, "More correctly, thousands of light years of dust is able to block out virtually all visible light from more distant stars."
Now then, this APOD
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070712.html
This pic says it is "relatively rich in foreground stars because it looks out near the crowded center of the Milky Way."
This seems that the galactic center is so clear, not only could you see it, but right through it, and 80 million light years beyond it.

Now I've admitted to being an if this, then that, kind of guy.
I just see too many the dust is too thick, the dust is too thin, the dust is there, there is no dust.... You'd have to read Al Gore's Nobel prize winning book to understand what I mean.
I am really just an average nut, that loves the night sky, would like to understand just a smitten, but absolutely cannot tolerate smoke and mirror hypothesis', which is more attached to commercialism than the cosmos. I have always loved the sky, and my love has been "enhanced" by APOD no doubt. When I came here I wasn't expecting, space is really bland so we thought we would improve it just a touch. I want to be dazzled by what's out there, not by photo imagery.

Your eloquent info-planation of sunlight lighting Holmes, given to the public by means of electronic trickery, seemingly easily at your disposal, also seems betrayed by the latter APOD looking through the galactic plane, ie "near".
This does not detract or even question the points you have made. I truly respect, and accept your point to Holmes. Perhaps I feel a bit duped, or is it that down deep, I want more? Could I be the one, hatched and nurtured on this thread, who one day comes to understand the universe? Not!

Thanks Chris
PB

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:38 am

PassionateBomba wrote:I have agreed earlier that the coma light is sunlight.
Very nice picture.
Are you saying the bright light in the HST coming from the core is sunlight too? That bright?

Yes. The core, or pseudonucleus, is part of the coma as well. It consists of the same dust, just in higher concentration because of its proximity to the active nucleus. Because it is denser, it reflects more light.

What does "bright" mean? Your monitor shows you 256 levels of intensity, ranging from black to white. Nothing can be blacker than black, and nothing can be whiter than white. It is customary to contrast stretch images to lie fully within the black and white points (Ansel Adams developed this technique for ordinary photography many years ago). Consequently, regardless of actual intensity, the brightest part of the coma is likely to be rendered as pure white, to which your brain assigns the subjective sense of "bright". Consider an image of the Moon- most of the surface is depicted as bright white, even though the actual surface has the reflectivity of fresh black asphalt.

I have also pointed out Hubble's variety of filters (settings) something on Hubble that can see and present something we cannot, as a source of what seems to be light. Can you replicate that bright of light simply using contrast?

The Holmes image was made with the Hubble WFPC2 camera, which has roughly the same spectral response as the human eye. It certainly doesn't see into the deep UV or IR. It is integrating, unlike the eye, so it can see much dimmer objects, but that's all.

Consider these: first, an image of the comet with a log intensity curve applied, approximating the human response to brightness. This is pretty close to the actual appearance of the comet in binoculars.

And next, the same source data, this with a special filter called a rotational gradient applied, which I expect is similar to the processing used for the APOD image, and contrast stretched between full black and full white. It is certainly easy with this latter to believe that the jets are lit by a glowing central core.

IT makes it sound like these images aren't really images, but techno-concoctions...

Not at all. The colors are approximations, since we can't see color with such dim objects. And the contrast is stretched so we can see detail. If we didn't do these things, everything would look like the telescopic views- faint, gray, and fuzzy. The images have been enhanced so we can see them better, but no data has been "concocted".

by **PassionateBomba** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:54 am

Welcome aboard Chris/Lucky

I have agreed earlier that the coma light is sunlight.
Very nice picture.
Are you saying the bright light in the HST coming from the core is sunlight too? That bright?
I have also pointed out Hubble's variety of filters (settings) something on Hubble that can see and present something we cannot, as a source of what seems to be light. Can you replicate that bright of light simply using contrast?

IT makes it sound like these images aren't really images, but techno-concoctions
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071201.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071129.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071124.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071101.html
I hope that isn't the case.
It would be a shame to find out these wondrous images had no more value than an Al Gore book.

I have a small Polaris d114mmxf910mm so I can't really discern these light patterns that well. I can see a brighter center, but it was the HST close up that peaked my curio. thanks for the input.

I agree Lucky, Chris has some good stuff, and that tiny amounts of energy of any kind can do big things in such a void, and Jupiter ain't exactly a tiny thing, as do John and Case. Every point of view, opinion, and curiosity is of enormous value. If that were not the case, God would have had no reason to give us Holmes and its many siblings to exercise our thought, our imaginations, imaginations that have brought us here, together, to ponder the more.

Thank you all
PassionateBomba

by **iamlucky13** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:02 pm

Chris, your pictures are often helpful to the discussion and always interesting. Thanks again.

Most likely, it has only been in its present orbit for a few thousand years at most.

Even less. It sounds like its orbit is frequently being disturbed tiny amounts by Jupiter. Eight years after it was discovered, it was lost, and not found until 1964.

Apparition of 1964: In the December 1963 issue of the Astronomical Journal B. G. Marsden integrated the motion of comet Holmes from 1899 to 1975 using a high-speed computer. He found that between the comet's last observed appearance in 1906 and the upcoming apparition of 1964, the orbital period should have increased from 6.86 years to 7.35 years, and the perihelion distance should have increased from 2.121 AU to 2.347 AU. The resulting prediction for the comet's next perihelion date was 1964 November 15.36. The comet was recovered by E. Roemer (U. S. Naval Observatory, Flagstaff station, Arizona) on 1964 July 16. She determined the magnitude as 19.2 and described the comet as very sharply condensed, with only a trace of coma. Additional plates were obtained on July 17, which revealed the same physical characteristics. Due to the weakness of the July images, additional confirmation was needed, and Roemer obtained this on September 11. The magnitude was determined as 18.7, and the comet was again described as very sharply condensed, with only a trace of coma. The precise positions indicated Marsden's prediction needed to be corrected by only +0.7 day.

http://cometography.com/pcomets/017p.html

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:15 am

PassionateBomba wrote:Is it really far fetched to think a very large thing like Jupiter could influence the orbit of a 2.2 mile wide piece of rock like Holmes?

Holmes is orbiting in a region of the Solar System where orbits are not very stable. It probably began as a long period comet that was perturbed into a short period orbit by Jupiter. Most likely, it has only been in its present orbit for a few thousand years at most. And it will be perturbed again, and end up in the Sun or even flung out of the Solar System entirely. That is the typical fate of Jupiter-class comets.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:09 am

PassionateBomba wrote:However, lending it some credibility by virtue of your knowledge, in the reference it states that dust etc keeps us from seeing the light from the galactic center. Dust completely blocks out the light of billions of suns.

More correctly, thousands of light years of dust is able to block out virtually all visible light from more distant stars.

In the close up APOD, there seems to be extremely bright light emitting from the core. I have suggested it isn't light but Hubble filters picking up gases or jets from the core, but I have not bought into the theory the dust is so thin, sun light is creating that kind of light from reflection. So I'm not so sold on it actually being light, and I have previously accepted you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but I do not believe the source of light in the APOD is sunlight.

It is sunlight. The dust coma of the comet is only a few million kilometers across, and it is very tenuous. Look at this image, which shows the nucleus as an almost starlike nebula. Stars as dim as magnitude 17 are easily visible right through the coma, even very close to the nucleus. There's enough material to reflect some sunlight, but not to absorb much. So nearly all the incident light can make it to the core.

I processed this image to give a sense of the visual appearance. Had I been looking for jets or other structure near the nucleus, I would have adjusted the contrast differently. The result would have been a much brighter nucleus, like what the HST image shows.

by **PassionateBomba** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:54 am

PassionateBomba wrote:
Looking at this orbit it seems to pass through or close to the asteroid belt. Maybe Holmes shakes a few pieces loose for us from time to time. Seems also like its erratic orbit could be Jupiter's influence.

Case wrote:
The mass of the comet and the mass of the astroid belt objects is so small that there will be no slingshot effect by gravity. The chance of a collision is very small, as the belt is mostly empty.

PassionateBomba writes:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020724.html
and then
http://shadowandsubstance.com/ (scroll down to second entry)
again.

hmmmm
A solar system spanning nearly 6 light years, and has only 8 planets. The solar system is mostly empty so the chance of a collision is extremely small....
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980804.html
Note the comment about this collision "the orbit of Jupiter around the Sun did not change noticeably." So, in the vaccum of space, even very small things, far less than 6.7% can have orbital influence on very large things.
Is it really far fetched to think a very large thing like Jupiter could influence the orbit of a 2.2 mile wide piece of rock like Holmes?

I think not. In fact, I think its highly probable.

by **PassionateBomba** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:17 am

If you substitute 6.7% in my comment, then it would read; 6.7% pull in another direction in the void of space would be quite significant.

(see above; also not a pro typer)

Wiki? Now there's a scientific reference if ever was one!
However, lending it some credibility by virtue of your knowledge, in the reference it states that dust etc keeps us from seeing the light from the galactic center. Dust completely blocks out the light of billions of suns.
hmmmm... Same argument I was using to ask about the light seeming to emit from Holmes, contending that dust cloud from Holmes, now bigger than the Sun, could block light from reaching the 2.2 mile stone at the comet nucleus, at 149million miles away from Earth.
I don't think that's off topic. I think the source you linked is right on topic. ie dust blocking light. In the close up APOD, there seems to be extremely bright light emitting from the core. I have suggested it isn't light but Hubble filters picking up gases or jets from the core, but I have not bought into the theory the dust is so thin, sun light is creating that kind of light from reflection. So I'm not so sold on it actually being light, and I have previously accepted you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but I do not believe the source of light in the APOD is sunlight.

So I remain asking, what is the source of the light, and if it is comet light, how does a comet create light?

Starship Asterisk*

Comet Holmes from Hubble Space Telescope (APOD 28 Nov 2007)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Comet Holmes from Hubble Space Telescope (APOD 28 Nov 2007)

Re: HOlmes light

HOlmes light