Talk:Comet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. | |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System. |
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
Comet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2004. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Comet is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Comet as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech, German, Japanese, Slovak or Vietnamese language Wikipedias. |
[edit] Miscellany
There's another comet article at Comets, which needs to be intregrated with this one. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 14
Drat, should have checked before I wrote all that stuff. :) I'll get to work on it. -BD
This page could really use a ordinary picture of a comet, preferably one showing two tales. And maybe a picture of the Jupiter impact. Should be something we could use at NASA. I just can't ever find what I want there. Rmhermen 17:04, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
"Some modern Freemasons claim that Stonehenge and similar ancient observatories were used to evaluate whether comets would hit the earth."
Why "modern Freemasons" nobody else can believe it ? This need some explanatio/sources IMO. Ericd 12:10, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Gonna get meself in more @hit here.
- Not everyone was surprised by the discovery of X-rays. One astronomer named Jim McCanney actually predicted them. He did so as early as 1981 in a scientific paper first published in the journal Kronos. McCanney even urged NASA officials to look for X-rays when the agency was preparing a fly-by of Comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985. At the time, NASA's ISEE-3 satellite had already completed its original mission, and was being reprogrammed for comet study. The spacecraft had X-ray equipment on board, and McCanney urged NASA to use it. Instead, NASA shut down the equipment to conserve power. NASA's experts concluded that there was no point in leaving the X-ray detector on, since there couldn't possibly be X-rays coming from a cube of ice.[1]
Noting that McCanney is clearly what Wikipedians in good standing (which I am not) class as a cuckoo, I have two simple questions: was such an article published; did NASA get requests to check for X-rays? Kwantus 05:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Should there be something about near-earth comets that may pose a collision danger? According to the Near-Earth object article, at least 49 near-earth comets have been identified... (2005, Jul 6)
[edit] Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Edition
The text that follows is my proposed edition to this article. If anybody has a problem with it, identify it before I make the changes to the article.
A comet is a small astronomical object similar to an asteroid, hypothesized to be composed largely of ice. Unlike asteroids, comets typically move in highly elliptical orbits, the aphelia of which may be many times more distant than Pluto's orbit. Often described as "dirty snowballs", or, after the "Deep Impact" mission, "snowy dirtballs", comets are commonly believed to be composed largely of frozen carbon dioxide, methane and water with dust and various mineral aggregates mixed in.
As late as 2002, no conclusive evidence of water had been discovered on any comet. NASA's Deep Space 1 team, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, obtained high-resolution images of the surface of comet Borrelly. They announced that comet Borrelly exhibits distinct jets, yet has a hot, dry surface. NASA remains confident the water is hidden just beneath the "crust". The assumption that comets contain water and other ices led Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey to say, "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice."[2]
This surprise was echoed in 2004, when comet Wild 2 was visited by NASA's Stardust spacecraft. Claudia Alexander, a program scientist for Rosetta from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who has has modeled comets for years, reported to space.com about her astonishment at the number of jets, their appearance on the dark side of the comet as well as the light side, their ability to lift large chunks of rock from the surface of the comet and the fact that comet Wild 2 is not a loosely-cemented rubble pile. In addition, no ices were identified on Wild 2.[3]
Comets are believed to originate in a hypothetical and as yet unobserved cloud (the Oort cloud) at large distances from the sun consisting of presumed debris left over from the condensation of a hypothetical solar nebula; the outer edges of such nebulae are assumed to be cool enough that water would exist in a solid (rather than gaseous) state. Asteroids are believed to originate via a different process, but close inspection of comets has revealed no water ices or volatiles, and show that comets appear to be very much like asteroids.
- Hmm, well, what was wrong with my edits? I think I presented both POVs correctly. If you wish, you may add a reference to the section in the introduction but having so much disputed information in the intro seems to push it off balance. Also, the scientific community at large still believes comets are made mostly of ice and at the beginning it say "are believe to originate" etc. which is good enough. I think my edition is more balanced, however, you of course are entitled to disagree. User:Sasquatch
- I checked the page again and saw that the information I put in was kept mostly intact, only moved. I still think the thrust of it, that data suggests comets have very little, if any, ices or volatiles, should go in the opening paragraphs. The opening paragraph still gives the reader the impression that comets are made of these ices and volatiles, but observations show ices and volatiles are present in miniscule amounts if they're present at all. I'm going to move some stuff over here from my talk page to support this. Plautus satire 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- This proposed version puts way too much emphasis on the issue of water detection, especially considering that the general consensus in the scientific community is pretty clear. Deep Impact was only a month ago, that's not enough time to claim that comets are now commonly called "snowy dirtballs" rather than "dirty snowballs" (a phrase that goes back decades). In general, there are too many weasel-words being used here. I think Sasquatch's version cleared up all these problems nicely. Bryan 06:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to move some stuff over from my talk page that demonstrates again and again astronomers changing their views about specific comets being made primarily of ices or volatiles. Plautus satire 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- In the picture (which is now on the Article page) of Comet Borrelly, what do the colors represent? I assume temperature, but the picture needs a scale. Mcswell 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creationism section
Although contrary to my previous position on this issue, having come across this at least three times in my WikiTravels (recently on Talk:Oort cloud), it is clear a significant number of creationists believe the fact comets are around (and according to them have no natural source) confirms young earth creationism. As such I think a "Creationism" section outlining the argument, linking its primary source Walt Brown, and a short rebuttal is appropriate. - RoyBoy 800 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- As discussed in that talk page, this is not really needed in the Oort cloud article and in this one. It fits just fine in the article about the author, Walt Brown, but is not "mainstream" enough IMO to have its own space here. Awolf002 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pulp fiction
"Deeply implausible"? It was written in 1877! And I suppose a meteor shower rendering people blind is plausible? I'm deleting. Trekphiler 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement drive
Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
I am including information about the origin of the word "comet" (Gr. "kometes", Aristotle.) CurtLindsay 2005.02.03 22:08 PST.
[edit] Comet symbol
Do we really need to have it in the opening sentence? it hardly seems important enough, many users will see it just as a question mark, and I'm not even sure it's very commonly used anyway - I've never seen it myself before, in the literature or elsewhere. I'm sure it could be included lower down though. Worldtraveller 12:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. There seems to be a tendency to use the lead as a bin for anything miscellaneous, which is roughly the opposite of what it should be. It's also very misleading, since I would read it as saying that the symbol in question is a question mark- we need some cunning way of saying otherwise. Markyour words 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, put it into the last section of the intro paragraph. I would have done that already, but I just see a question mark, so I can not tell if I mess things up moving the text. Awolf002 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest keep, the symbol is widely known, and for users read it as a question mark, it's their own problem, they should configure their computer properly first. — Yaohua2000 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- No-one's suggested deleting it. Markyour words 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect we could interpret Worldtraveller's deletion of the character as a suggestion that it should be deleted. :) Bryan 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- No-one's suggested deleting it. Markyour words 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
To help editors, at least, we could replace the character with its HTML unicode entity: ☄ (☄). Bryan 19:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] THE COMA IS LIGHT!!!
The statement saying that the comas would be made from dust and gases is more than funny. Think about how fast would such a comet consume if it would liberate dust and gases behind it. No, people! Comets don't leave dust and gases behind it. THE COMETS PRODUCE LIGHT, due to one of the natures laws veritable for all the quickening bodies: ANY BODY PRODUCES ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN OPPOSITE TO ITS ACCELERATION. The properties of this field depends on the properties of that body and its movements. I can not find, the frequency of the light produced by the comets, yet, but I am convinced that it is an universally phenomenon. This theory says that even all the planets (mostly Mercury) has an opposite tail to the Sun, but this one is probably made from microwaves because the acceleration of the planets is smaller than comets. Even the radioactivity of the atomics kernels is due to this universally phenomenon! abel 15:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to propose new (and unorthodox) theories (dubbed original research in WP). Please, find a venue on a different web site for this type of discussion. Awolf002 22:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for response. But NOT EXIST other place to propose new theories! And this text is JUST DISCUSSION for THIS place. abel 06:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite. This place/text is meant for discussing the article and possible improvements. So, when proposing such an improvement one should follow accepted policies, and your suggestion runs into WP:NOR. Therefore, I think you want to find a different website altogether to discuss your ideas. Awolf002 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is the most obsurd thing I have ever heard except for the folks that thought there was a space ship behind Hale-Bopp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
- Most sources say that the coma's brightness comes from the reflection off the coma's dust and gas. The coma is not completely behind the comet, as a huge portion in in front of its acceleration. Also, if the coma was microwave energy, it would not be visible. The comet does, however, emit ultraviolet light, hydrogen, and X-rays, and this is mostly caused be the solar wind's effect on the comet. Also, the tail of the comet is dust and gas and the reflection of it, and so is the coma. It's not impossible that the coma emmits a bit of light, since there is some effects on the comet that cause it to emit energy, especially of high frequency. Actual light emitted directly from the coma, however, has not yet been observed. AstroHurricane001 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations
This article was selected for inclusion in Version 0.5 due to its quality and its importance; however, is it possible for the reference numbering to be fixed? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confirmation of water
Deep Impact confirmed that Tempel 1 at least has large amounts of water ice below the surface, though not much on it, since it would obviously be vaporised by the sun. I'm rewriting some things to reflect this.--Planetary 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what is the next big one?
I realize it's not 100% possible to predict, but when will be the next great or significant comet to look out for? I don't want to miss it. Or I wonder how long I have to wait. (I live on Earth.)--Sonjaaa 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Halley will be back in 2061, other then that, I don't know.--Planetary 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's actually a good way of putting it. The short-period comets, those with orbital periods less than 200 years or so, we can more or less predict their positions, but of them, only Halley consistently puts on a good show. Most of the really bright comets are long-period comets, that have never appeared before within human history, and we have no idea when one is coming until someone notices it. Shimmin 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So if a really bright comet suddenly came, we would only get notice a month or so notice before it's visible? Or how long before it comes is it usually predictable?--Sonjaaa 04:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how early the comet is detected and the comet's orbit. A number of automated telescopes, that are used for NEO searches, sometimes discover long period comets when they are very faint. Comet C/2002 T7 LINEAR was discovered when it was 17th magnitude and astronomers had almost two years before it reached perihelion. ~ User:LawfulGoodThief 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the current visible comets section needs to be frequently updated. It is now November, not October. AstroHurricane001 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Dave's Virtual Sungrazing Observatory"
The newly added text with the 'advertising' for this web site is superflouos and it should go. This is not an article about how to find comets. Adding a link this is inappropriate. Awolf002 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comet NEAT
Hi. Is there an article on Comet C/2002 V1? Yes, it's notable, and I am able to provide reliable sources. Please respond so I could decide whether or not I create the article. Thanks. AstroHurricane001 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess I'll just create one Here. I know where to find references. AstroHurricane001 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great comets
How bright does a comet have to be before it is classified as a great comet? Is mag. 0 to -7 bright enough? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Wide" Page
Is it just me or is the page very "wide?" Mike6271 03:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Might just be your personal computer settings. Serendipodous 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confused by this sentence
"One theory holds that as a comet approaches the inner solar system, solar radiation causes part of its outer layers, composed of ice and other materials, to melt and evaporate, but this has not been proven."
What other theories are there? How is this theory still in debate, even after we've sent probes into the comas of several comets? Serendipodous 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: FA-Class Astronomy articles | FA-Class Astronomical Objects articles | FA-Class Solar System articles | Wikipedia featured articles | Wikipedia CD Selection | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles | FA-Class Version 0.7 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.7 articles | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Czech) | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (German) | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Japanese) | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Slovak) | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Vietnamese)
