In October, Comet Holmes "exploded" (maybe not literally---one explanation is that it is simply visible head-on or tail-on; whereas one radio talkshow guest, Richard C. Hoagland, stated he thinks it could have been the focus of an experiment, apparently, to see if an object in distant space could be hit from Earth). Anyway, assuming it literally blew up, what will happen to it? Will it re-form into a comet?
2007-12-06 19:56:40 · 7 answers · asked by The Invisible Man 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Hoagland makes money by saying things he knows can't be true to people he knows don't understand. Complete this proverb: "A fool and his money . . ."
It didn't literally blow up. It is caused by outgassing, in other words, it's erupting gas and dust. After it finishes, it will be more-or-less the same.
2007-12-06 21:18:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You need to know that this is at least the THIRD time Comet Holmes has erupted in this way. The coma (gaseous shell) is not the comet. The comet itself is actually quite a small body, maybe five kilometres across, and is probably pretty much unchanged by what happened on October 23.
Hoagland is, as usual, full of hogwash! If Holmes' eruption was induced from Earth, then so must its two eruptions in 1892. We didn't have rockets or nuclear warheads in 1892.
2007-12-07 02:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Comet 17P/Holmes likely did not "explode". What is more probable is that it may have fractured for some reason, exposing much more of the frozen ices to the Sun, which in turn vaporized those ices and expelled the vapor from the coma. It is too far away to get a good picture of it (doesn't help that the head of the comet is enshrouded). It is still a comet.
2007-12-06 22:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by cyswxman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi Ron,
It seem reasonable to think that if it did explode, it may
re form. I am assuming that the small rock at the centre has some kind of pull, gathering the particles around it. If it did, and it was thrown in any explosion. Wouldn't the particles gather around the larger core of rock that was left?
These are the times when I wish I was well read on the subject. It is one of my interests, however...;-)
I have enjoyed reading everyone's answers with interest.
Cassandra
2007-12-08 00:04:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that term is used for the making of tail by coming towards the sun.
When any comet comes towards the sun, its starts making a tail and thats why that term is used...
yes, I am also not able to see it from many days .. I know its changed position but who knows, maybe that is by weather.
2007-12-06 22:34:34 · answer #5 · answered by Vipul C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it might not have exploded. It might be like a halo of gas that was "lit" up by charged solar winds.
Multiple repeated thermally-induced mechanical stresses are thought to give rise to a cometary aging process, whereby a large single core disintegrates after multiple closer solar encounters into much smaller fragments
2007-12-06 21:18:18 · answer #6 · answered by Mercury 2010 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
richard hoagland is a master bullshitter, just ask phil plait of bad astronomy.
ask an astronomer !
Here's the one who is helping me ..
http://asktheastronomer.blogspot.com
asktheastronomer@inbox.com
Her name is Starr ,she'll teach you everything ! the right telescope , what's easy to learn what to learn while waiting for your telescope !
She'll teach you how to learn the night sky very easily .
in email she taught me neat stuff and how to be a good skywatcher !! and how to observe sattelites in your telescope.
2007-12-08 06:11:09 · answer #7 · answered by Neptune 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋