In comet, how the tail follow nucleus when gravity very weak?

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

It doesn't. The tail (actually tails) material is constantly ejected from the nucleus. Old tail particles are blown away and replaced by new tail particles.

Quote from: fjr66 on June 02, 2018, 09:13:00 AM

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

It doesn't. The tail (actually tails) material is constantly ejected from the nucleus. Old tail particles are blown away and replaced by new tail particles.

Brilliant.

You need to study the comet Holmes P17:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619877#msg1619877

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.
 
At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling.

Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

Didn’t know about this comet. Thanks for the heads up.

Most articles point into the direction of build up gasses bursting through the outer crust or a collision with another body.

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

It doesn't always follow it. Sometimes it leads it.  The tail is always pointing away from the sun.

Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

If the comet had any significant gravity, then how could the coma have grown to 7 million km?

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

It doesn't. If you observe them when close to the sun you notice the "tail" is going away from the sun, not along the path of the comet.
The coma is composed of gas that is ablated from the comet. This gas is then pushed by solar winds away from the comet.

Brilliant.
You need to study

No. That would be you, bringing up completely irrelevant crap.

You post a bunch of claims with no backing at all, and make false conclusions based upon these false claims.

The coma wasn't being held in place by the comet, it was expanding which is why it became larger than the sun.
There is no evidence of it being magically held in place (especially as it wasn't held in place at all) or that it was perfectly uniform and spherical (pictures of it easily show it wasn't spherical), nor any indication that it is a problem for current models of reality at all.

In reality, what we have is the comet produced a significantly larger amount of gas, which resulted in the coma expanding significantly due to the outgassing which resulted in an increase in brightness. As with all comet outgassing the coma particulates dispersed outwards and was blown by stellar winds.

The only actual question is what caused the increase in outgassing, with several possibilities put forwards.
Unfortunately, like many things from the past, as there are multiple possibilities and we did not record the event in enough detail, we will be unable to determine the actual cause.

But there is no need to jump to completely different ideas about comets.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on June 02, 2018, 09:57:08 AM

Quote from: fjr66 on June 02, 2018, 09:13:00 AM

There are three part of the comet: nucleus, coma, and tail. I dont understand what mechanism that makes a tail of comet follow the rest of the comet, when the comet just a small object that dont have significant gravity attraction.

It doesn't. The tail (actually tails) material is constantly ejected from the nucleus. Old tail particles are blown away and replaced by new tail particles.

Brilliant.

You need to study the comet Holmes P17:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619877#msg1619877

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.
 
At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling.

Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

And what part of this relates to the question and answer about the comet's tail?

No. That would be you, bringing up completely irrelevant crap.

You post a bunch of claims with no backing at all, and make false conclusions based upon these false claims.

Question for the moderators: why is this bozo allowed to post in such a manner in the upper forums?

This is the reason why all of the FE will leave this forum.

Why is jb's trolling and shitposting allowed to go on with no consequences at all?


Only a moron would pretend to understand the dynamics of comets and post in such a manner:

The coma wasn't being held in place by the comet, it was expanding which is why it became larger than the sun.

Real scientists have a different opinion:

"Comets are perhaps at once the most spectacular and the least well understood members of the solar system."

M. Neugebauer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

“The remarkable properties of comets are not even remotely explicable by any of the numerous ad hoc assumptions of ‘modern’ comet theory.”

— R A Lyttleton, FRS, Journey to the Centre of Uncertainty, Speculations in Science & Technology.


Here is the huge problem with comet Holmes P17.

If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?
 
Comet Holmes 17P in the shape of a sphere

http://www.racingshadow.com/CometMet/17P_Holmes/17P_Holmes.html

1 and 4 show Comet Holmes as a circular disk, in reality a sphere, of dust with a well defined explosion front.


The moron again:

There is no evidence of it being magically held in place (especially as it wasn't held in place at all) or that it was perfectly uniform and spherical (pictures of it easily show it wasn't spherical), nor any indication that it is a problem for current models of reality at all.






A TOTAL SPHERICAL SHAPE!

How could such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

How could it maintain a spherical shape against the effects of the solar wind?

The coma wasn't being held in place by the comet, it was expanding which is why it became larger than the sun.

But it WAS held in place by the comet, in a totally inexplicable way

The photographs prove it in no uncertain manner.

A total defiance of Newtonian mechanics!



This 12-arcminute-wide frame from Arkansas Sky Observatory shows the comet as a brilliant, near-circular disk on the morning of October 25th. Clay Sherrod used a 0.4-meter (16-inch) Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope at f/3.







A PERFECT SPHERICAL SHAPE FOR COMET HOLMES P17!









A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

"It's a mystery to me how comets work at all."
--Donald Brownlee, principal investigator of NASA's Stardust Mission

The unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diamater, against the force of the solar wind.

As with all comet outgassing the coma particulates dispersed outwards and was blown by stellar winds.

A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF STELLAR WINDS!

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

How does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?

Obviously, Newtonian attractive gravitation PLAYS NO ROLE AT ALL IN COMET DYNAMICS.

Comet Holmes 17P has made international headlines with an energetic outburst that has left astronomers speechless. The website skyandtelescope.com has called it "the weirdest new object to appear in the sky in memory." "For no apparent reason," the comet began to increase in luminosity, rapidly brightening from 17th magnitude to about 2.5 -- approximately a million-fold increase in brightness.

In the span of a few days, the comet's coma grew to such an enormous and bright disk that it could be seen with the naked eye, though it never gets as close to the Sun as the planet Mars, and when it suddenly erupted, it was moving AWAY from the Sun.
 
As the structure of the coma has clarified itself, jets have appeared streaming away from the center. The source of the jets is entirely enigmatic, if not preposterous through the lens of the usual comet assumptions.
 
"This is truly a celestial surprise"..."Absolutely amazing", said Paul Lewis, director of astronomy outreach at the University of Tennessee.
 
The reason for astronomers' amazement is that, given the comet's distance from the Sun, solar heating cannot offer a plausible explanation for the eruption. Worse than that, it has been moving AWAY from the Sun! So now, astronomers trying to explain these anomalies have begun grasping at straws. After a bit of hair tearing, the most common speculation is that the source of the outburst is "sinkholes" in the comet nucleus. But the trivial, almost immeasurable, gravity of a comet could hardly justify this "explanation" -- no force is available to cause the surface to "sink"!

If you wish to discuss this particular comet start a new thread. What you are bringing up has nothing to do with the topic.
This is the last post in this thread I will direct towards it.

What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence?

Because the explosions you are most familiar with have the explosion themselves be the light source.
But for the comet, the explosive event would have put out large amounts of debris which then gets lit up by the sun.
Think of it more like a glitter bomb. The "bomb" part doesn't actually shine significantly, instead all the little bits of glitter do.

Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

You mean why did it take so long for it to travel millions of km (relative to the comet)?
Well, from my brief reading it appears to have taken less than a month to reach that size.
So to get a rough idea (with numbers off in your favour), 1 million km per month, 32 000 km per day, 1344 km/hr or 373 m/s.
Does that really sound all that slow?

 
Comet Holmes 17P in the shape of a sphere

You sure do have a funny idea of a sphere.

While it is roughly circular at some stages, it is still noticeably non-spherical.
This one really takes the cake:


So no defiance of any science at all.

Now if you want to discuss it any more, start a new thread.

If you wish to discuss this particular comet start a new thread. What you are bringing up has nothing to do with the topic.
This is the last post in this thread I will direct towards it.

Quote from: sandokhan on June 02, 2018, 09:22:46 PM

What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence?

Because the explosions you are most familiar with have the explosion themselves be the light source.
But for the comet, the explosive event would have put out large amounts of debris which then gets lit up by the sun.
Think of it more like a glitter bomb. The "bomb" part doesn't actually shine significantly, instead all the little bits of glitter do.

Quote from: sandokhan on June 02, 2018, 09:22:46 PM

Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

You mean why did it take so long for it to travel millions of km (relative to the comet)?
Well, from my brief reading it appears to have taken less than a month to reach that size.
So to get a rough idea (with numbers off in your favour), 1 million km per month, 32 000 km per day, 1344 km/hr or 373 m/s.
Does that really sound all that slow?

Quote from: sandokhan on June 02, 2018, 09:22:46 PM

 
Comet Holmes 17P in the shape of a sphere

You sure do have a funny idea of a sphere.

While it is roughly circular at some stages, it is still noticeably non-spherical.
This one really takes the cake:


So no defiance of any science at all.

Now if you want to discuss it any more, start a new thread.

You have had your arse handed to you again Jack. Utterly defeated yourself.

You have had your arse handed to you again Jack. Utterly defeated yourself.

What about you justifying that pure argument from ridicule we saw from sandokhan.
He gave no real justification other than a "it doesn't look right approach"?
If you consider that Newton's Laws are bunkum, as sandokhan seems to, what do you propose should be used for calculations here on earth?

The tail is always pointing away from the sun.


If you observe them when close to the sun you notice the "tail" is going away from the sun, not along the path of the comet.
The coma is composed of gas that is ablated from the comet. This gas is then pushed by solar winds away from the comet.

The tail has nothing to do with solar winds.

Proof from the SOHO spacecraft, the tails of the comets 96P/Machholz and NEAT do not interact at all with solar winds:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066114#msg2066114


The coma contains DUST and GAS.

We have seen that the gas does not interact with the solar wind, contrary to the myth perpetrated by modern astronomy.

In the case of an outburst (comet 17P/Holmes), the grain particles in the coma WILL NOT be affected by solar radiation pressure.


http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2010/SKJ10.pdf

"We do not detect any systematic acceleration of the fragments
between 2007 November 6 and 2007 November 14 UT,
since a single mean velocity over the observational data set predicts
a time of ejection that agrees with the published eruption
time (Wilkening et al. 2007). This suggests two things: first,
that radiation pressure does not significantly affect the motion
of the fragments."

Especially if the expansion velocity is high, it may completely dominate the radiation-pressure effects for days or even weeks.


Then, the RE have a huge, in fact insurmountable, problem: they have to rely SOLELY on the law of "universal" gravitation to explain the spherical shape of the coma of comet 17P/Holmes.

The calculations show that the gravitational force exerted by the Sun is ~10¹⁴ greater than the force exerted by the comet itself.

A comparison of the shape of the comets Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake and 17P/Holmes, gravitational force calculations, and solar wind zero effect on the tail of the comets videos, photographs showing the perfect spherical shape of comet 17P/Holmes Oct 23 2007 - Nov 5 2007:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066114#msg2066114

The tail has nothing to do with solar winds.
Proof from the SOHO spacecraft, the tails of the comets 96P/Machholz and NEAT do not interact at all with solar winds:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066114#msg2066114

That isn't proof.
That is a link to more nonsense from you.
Do you have actual proof?

The coma contains DUST and GAS.

And who has denied that?

We have seen that the gas does not interact with the solar wind, contrary to the myth perpetrated by modern astronomy.

No we haven't, especially as solar wind is effectively gas.

In the case of an outburst (comet 17P/Holmes), the grain particles in the coma WILL NOT be affected by solar radiation pressure.

Again, start a new thread on it if you wish to discuss that comet.

Proof from the SOHO spacecraft, the tails of the comets 96P/Machholz and NEAT do not interact at all with solar winds:

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft)

Comet NEAT as observed by the SOHO spacecraft, was subjected to two corona mass ejections at its near passage of the Sun, and in between the solar wind had fluctuated from a hourly average low speed of 354 km/s to a hourly average high speed of 916 km/s as recorded by the SOHO's CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor, yet the comet gas tail deflection was observed to be not affected by the solar wind fluctuation at all; this is an empirical evidence that the gas tail of comet is not blown away by solar wind to point directly away from the Sun.


And who has denied that?

You have:

The coma is composed of gas that is ablated from the comet.

In fact it is composed of DUST and GAS.

The motion of dust depends on the β parameter.

β = F_pr/F_g

F_pr is directly proportional to the efficiency factor of the solar radiation pressure, Q_pr.

Since both forces are radial and opposite and vary as r^-2, a dust particle will follow a Keplerian trajectory that corresponds to an "effective" gravitational field reduced by the factor (1 - β)F_g.

In the case of an outburst (comet 17P/Holmes), the grain particles in the coma WILL NOT be affected by solar radiation pressure.

http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2010/SKJ10.pdf

"We do not detect any systematic acceleration of the fragments
between 2007 November 6 and 2007 November 14 UT,
since a single mean velocity over the observational data set predicts
a time of ejection that agrees with the published eruption
time (Wilkening et al. 2007). This suggests two things: first,
that radiation pressure does not significantly affect the motion
of the fragments."

Especially if the expansion velocity is high, it may completely dominate the radiation-pressure effects for days or even weeks.

This means that the dust particle, at a distance of 700,000 km from the nucleus of the comet 17P/Holmes, and a distance of 2.43 AU from the Sun, will be subject SOLELY to the gravitational forces exerted by the comet and by the Sun.

Proof from the SOHO spacecraft, the tails of the comets 96P/Machholz and NEAT do not interact at all with solar winds:

Once again you have a strange idea of proof.

Your first youtube video seems to show the tail being oriented away from the sun, except for a short period.
The second has a much larger tail and the contents again appear to move away from the sun.
So I would say that is pretty definitive proof that they do interact with solar winds.

And who has denied that?
You have:

No I didn't.
Leaving out a component is not the same as saying it isn't there.

If you wish to claim I have denied it find where I have done so.

In the case of an outburst (comet 17P/Holmes)

Again, if you want to discuss that comet, start a new thread, especially as you are blatantly ignoring what your source actually says.

Your first youtube video seems to show the tail being oriented away from the sun, except for a short period

You must be watching another video.

In this one, comet 96P/Machholz closely approaches the Sun in a parallel trajectory. The tail is completely unaffected by the solar wind: no disruption, no change of trajectory.



This was your claim:

If you observe them when close to the sun you notice the "tail" is going away from the sun, not along the path of the comet.

But the tail of comet 96P/Machholz does not "go away from the sun": it is going exactly along the path of the comet.


The second has a much larger tail and the contents again appear to move away from the sun.

You need a visit to your local eye physician.

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

The tail of comet NEAT is completely unaffected by two large coronal blasts from the Sun.

It is not blown away by solar wind, to point away from the Sun.

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft)

Comet NEAT as observed by the SOHO spacecraft, was subjected to two corona mass ejections at its near passage of the Sun, and in between the solar wind had fluctuated from a hourly average low speed of 354 km/s to a hourly average high speed of 916 km/s as recorded by the SOHO's CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor, yet the comet gas tail deflection was observed to be not affected by the solar wind fluctuation at all; this is an empirical evidence that the gas tail of comet is not blown away by solar wind to point directly away from the Sun.


Comet C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS) completely unaffected by direct solar wind blasts:





The tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.

Yay sandostupid derails another thread by lying and misusing things he found others said to make himself think he sounds intelligent..  But shitter found a new pole to spitshine so that's a plus.

Linking to your own posts does not constitute proof, none of those pictures are perfectly spherical, and if someone disagrees with you it is not a personal attacks to cry for the moderators to deal with, if you want a personal attacks see the example of my first paragraph there.  I see you are doubling down on your video there.  The second is easier to see, so watch how the tail keeps angling away, not 180 degrees but away, and it's obvious to see the direction change.

Proof from the SOHO spacecraft, the tails of the comets 96P/Machholz and NEAT do not interact at all with solar winds:

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

I fail to see how you can say "unaffected by solar wind". If you watch the video you will note that the tail gets stripped off by the coronial ejection.
And in these photos you can see that the that the tail has almost completely turned around.

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)
Likewise the tail here is certainly affected by solar wind.

Here too the that the tail is turning around but not yet turned all the way. It is certainly affected by the solar wind.It should be noted that comets commonly have two tails, one from surface dust and one from the ionised gas that has been stripped off.
These tails can usually differentiated by their colour, with the ionised gas being blue and the dust tail being white to yellowish.
But on these photos, being monochrome, they could not be separated.

Comet NEAT as observed by the SOHO spacecraft, was subjected to two corona mass ejections at its near passage of the Sun, and in between the solar wind had fluctuated from a hourly average low speed of 354 km/s to a hourly average high speed of 916 km/s as recorded by the SOHO's CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor, yet the comet gas tail deflection was observed to be not affected by the solar wind fluctuation at all; this is an empirical evidence that the gas tail of comet is not blown away by solar wind to point directly away from the Sun.

Whoever says that the gas tail always points directly away from the sun? When passing close to the sun the tail may lag the fast-moving comet.

And when well away from the sun the ionised gas tail points away from the sun, but the dust tail may point in a quite different direction, as in this photo:

Comet C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS) completely unaffected by direct solar wind blasts:





The tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.

In both videos, the tail is gradually turning around to point away from the sun when the comet's path straightens out.
But the tail is not like a rigid stick that can swing instantly around with the comet.

Once having left the comet the tail follows its own trajectory.  Hence the direction of the tail lags the line from the sun to the comet.

Shitposting and trolling will not help you rabinoz.

The moderators and everyone else should note the unbelievable propensity of this user to obfuscate, to hide the truth, how he uses devious subterfuges and deceitful, fraudulent claims in order to obscure, as much as possible, the obvious truth: these videos are a counterexample which invalidate the claims made by modern astronomy regarding the interaction of comet tails and solar wind.

And in these photos you can see that the that the tail has almost completely turned around.

Do you understand where you are and what is being debated here?

Your images have the following dates attached to them:

2012/07/13
2012/07/16

MY VIDEO HAS THE FOLLOWING DATE:

2012/07/15

In this video comet 96P/Machholz closely approaches the Sun in a parallel trajectory. The tail is completely unaffected by the solar wind: no disruption, no change of trajectory.

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

It takes A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE to invalidate a theory.


The moderators should note that rabinoz used videos taken in different days, and NOT the video posted by me.


Here too the that the tail is turning around but not yet turned all the way. It is certainly affected by the solar wind.

Again, you are using videos taken on different dates:

2003/02/17
2003/02/18
2003/02/19

My video is dated 2003/02/16:



The tail of comet NEAT is completely unaffected by two large coronal blasts from the Sun.

It is not blown away by solar wind, to point away from the Sun.

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft)

Comet NEAT as observed by the SOHO spacecraft, was subjected to two corona mass ejections at its near passage of the Sun, and in between the solar wind had fluctuated from a hourly average low speed of 354 km/s to a hourly average high speed of 916 km/s as recorded by the SOHO's CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor, yet the comet gas tail deflection was observed to be not affected by the solar wind fluctuation at all; this is an empirical evidence that the gas tail of comet is not blown away by solar wind to point directly away from the Sun.


It should be noted that comets commonly have two tails, one from surface dust and one from the ionised gas that has been stripped off.
These tails can usually differentiated by their colour, with the ionised gas being blue and the dust tail being white to yellowish.

Have you lost your mind rabinoz?

The dust coma is being affected only by the solar radiation pressure.

The ionised gas is supposed to interact with the solar wind blasts.

In the videos posted by me right here, the tails of both comets do not interact at all with the direct solar wind blasts.

Whoever says that the gas tail always points directly away from the sun?

Your best friend:

If you observe them when close to the sun you notice the "tail" is going away from the sun, not along the path of the comet.


And when well away from the sun the ionised gas tail points away from the sun, but the dust tail may point in a quite different direction, as in this photo:

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/cometarygastail1.jpg

Comet 17P/Holmes retains its spherical shape, contrary to the photograph shown above:



Moreover, the videos I provided clearly show that the tail of both comets WAS NOT being affected by solar wind at all.


In both videos, the tail is gradually turning around to point away from the sun when the comet's path straightens out.

What?

In both videos the tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.

The direct solar wind blast has ZERO effect on the comet's tail:






Three counterexamples which do prove that solar wind does not interact at all with the tail of a comet.

In the case of an outburst (comet 17P/Holmes), the grain particles in the coma WILL NOT be affected by solar radiation pressure.

http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2010/SKJ10.pdf

"We do not detect any systematic acceleration of the fragments
between 2007 November 6 and 2007 November 14 UT,
since a single mean velocity over the observational data set predicts
a time of ejection that agrees with the published eruption
time (Wilkening et al. 2007). This suggests two things: first,
that radiation pressure does not significantly affect the motion
of the fragments."

Especially if the expansion velocity is high, it may completely dominate the radiation-pressure effects for days or even weeks.

This means that the dust particle, at a distance of 700,000 km from the nucleus of the comet 17P/Holmes, and a distance of 2.43 AU from the Sun, will be subject SOLELY to the gravitational forces exerted by the comet and by the Sun.


A new comet theory is being developed at the present time, the electrical comet theory, which takes into account the barycenter effects of the jovian planets and the electrostatic atmosphere confinement of the comet.

You must be watching another video.
In this one, comet 96P/Machholz closely approaches the Sun in a parallel trajectory. The tail is completely unaffected by the solar wind: no disruption, no change of trajectory.

No. Pretty sure it is the same video.
Here are too screenshots from it, with what I presume is the comet highlighted:



The comet moves upwards and to the left.
Initially, the comet is to the lower right of the sun and the trail goes to the lower right.
The comet then passes the sun and the tail moves to the upper left.

Going to stop with the nonsense now?
Everyone can see the video and clearly see the tail is affected.
It does not simply trail along behind the comet.

You repeating the same false claims wont magically make them true.

MY VIDEO HAS THE FOLLOWING DATE:
2012/07/15

Have you bothered looking at your video?
It has a range of dates.
It starts on 2012/07/12 22:47 and ends on 2012/07/17 10:18.

Now how about you address the obvious fact that the tail does not follow the comet?

It takes A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE to invalidate a theory.

And this single counter example showing the tail clearly being affected by something coming from the sun (likely the solar wind) disproves your claims.

You must be watching another video.
In this one, comet 96P/Machholz closely approaches the Sun in a parallel trajectory. The tail is completely unaffected by the solar wind: no disruption, no change of trajectory.

You can't make this shit up.  Anyone who watches the video all the way through will see how he lies.  The tail clearly shows it is pointing away from the Sun except for when it is very close to the Sun. 

He provides the proof of his constant lies all the time. 
And he is still crying about getting the moderators to stop Rab or Jack from showing how stupid he really is.  What a pathetic loser.  Queue Shitter.

Quote from: sandokhan on June 04, 2018, 05:08:27 AM

You must be watching another video.
In this one, comet 96P/Machholz closely approaches the Sun in a parallel trajectory. The tail is completely unaffected by the solar wind: no disruption, no change of trajectory.

You can't make this shit up.  Anyone who watches the video all the way through will see how he lies.  The tail clearly shows it is pointing away from the Sun except for when it is very close to the Sun. 

He provides the proof of his constant lies all the time. 
And he is still crying about getting the moderators to stop Rab or Jack from showing how stupid he really is.  What a pathetic loser.  Queue Shitter.

Right on cue!

What do you want me to do?

The comet moves upwards and to the left.
Initially, the comet is to the lower right of the sun and the trail goes to the lower right.
The comet then passes the sun and the tail moves to the upper left.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL VIDEO, not modified individual screenshots:



While passing close to the Sun, the tail is always at a constant angle with respect to the Sun. It is not being deflected by direct solar wind blasts at all.

Do not try to fool your readers: while passing very close the Sun, facing the solar wind blasts from a near distance, NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE TAIL AT ALL.

Here is the formula for solar wind blasts:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=CcSUeymd-14C&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=comet+tail+solar+wind+lag&source=bl&ots=u4TZVffFJQ&sig=aRyTgPRMglxRHShybkwkO-QS5DU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg2q-VsbrbAhUEApoKHdoGD_cQ6AEISTAE#v=onepage&q=comet%20tail%20solar%20wind%20lag&f=false

tan ε = V/ω

V = component of the comet's orbital velocity perpendicular to the radius vector
ω = radial solar-wind speed
ε = tail lag or aberration angle


While passing very close the Sun, NO TAIL LAG ANGLE IS VISIBLE AT ALL, none whatsoever, in the face of direct solar wind blasts.

A total defiance of the myth perpetrated by modern astrophysics.

What happens at a much larger distance, is not our concern anymore (the barycenter of the jovian planets, the electrostatic atmosphere confinement are other real causes which change the lag angle).

Everyone can see the video and clearly see the tail is affected.
It does not simply trail along behind the comet.

But it does simply trail along behind the comet, while passing next to the Sun, in the face of direct solar wind blasts.

This is what we are talking about here.

You are trying to fool your readers and it doesn't work like that.

The formula is very clear: in the face of DIRECT SOLAR WIND BLASTS, there is going to be a lag angle.

No lag angle whatsoever is being observed as the comet passes right next to the Sun.


It takes A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE to invalidate a theory.


More videos showing the exact same thing.


For this one, the solar wind blasts is very high: 916 km/s, here is the data.

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft)



The tail of comet NEAT is completely unaffected by two large coronal blasts from the Sun.

It is not blown away by solar wind, to point away from the Sun.

The formula provided by modern astrophysics is useless, as there is no tail lag, in the face of huge solar wind blast at 916 km/s (450km/s is considered a very large speed for solar wind blasts).

Comet NEAT in the face of a direct, huge solar wind blast, at 916 km/s: no modification of the tail lag.


In both videos the tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.

The direct solar wind blast has ZERO effect on the comet's tail:






Your stupid tricks don't work with me.

Shitposting and trolling will not help you rabinoz.

The moderators and everyone else should note the unbelievable propensity of this user to obfuscate, to hide the truth, how he uses devious subterfuges and deceitful, fraudulent claims in order to obscure, as much as possible, the obvious truth: these videos are a counterexample which invalidate the claims made by modern astronomy regarding the interaction of comet tails and solar wind.

And in these photos you can see that the tail has almost completely turned around.

Do you understand where you are and what is being debated here?

Most certainly I do.

Your images have the following dates attached to them:
2012/07/13, 2012/07/16

Sure they do. The 2012/07/13 is the date near the beginning of the video and the 2012/07/16 is rhe date near the end.

MY VIDEO HAS THE FOLLOWING DATE:
2012/07/15

And your 2012/07/15 date is for somewhere in the middle.

Please read my post again and note that those screen-shots were from:

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

Your post!
Note title on the video: "Comet 96P/Machholz in SOHO field 2012" and the initial date and time was "2012/07/12 22:47".

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

Your post!
Note title on the video: "Comet C/2002 V1 (NEAT)" and the initial date and time was "2003/02/16 00:18".

And I explained that the tail of a comet is not a rigid body attached to the comet.
Once the ionised gas and dust leave the comet they move on their own subject to their own inertial forces, gravitation and the solar wind.
The ionised gas is essentially part the solar wind, though primarily CO⁺ rather than electrons and protons.
The dust will be more or less affected by the solar wind depending on the particle size, as a result the dust tail can be quite spread out as in.

The blue ion tail contains charged particles swept from the coma by the solar wind.
It shines through flourescence and is straighter than the broad, yellow dust tail.
Credit: Jerry Lodriguss

The deceptive practice of posting individual screenshots does not count as evidence.

Only the full video exhibiting the continuous trajectory of the comet counts.

Here is the formula put forth by modern astrophysics:

tan ε = V/ω

V = component of the comet's orbital velocity perpendicular to the radius vector
ω = radial solar-wind speed
ε = tail lag or aberration angle

Here is the data for the solar wind speeds for comet NEAT:

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft, data for comet NEAT)

Comet NEAT completely unaffected by the direct solar wind blast at 916km/s:

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

Then, the formula for solar wind blasts is useless.


(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

While passing close to the Sun, the tail is always at a constant angle with respect to the Sun. It is not being deflected by direct solar wind blasts at all.

Since the formula does not apply to close distances, it cannot be used to describe the orbital trajectory of the comet/tail at a greater distance.


It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a theory.


Here is a third video.

Comet C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS) completely unaffected by direct solar wind blasts:





The tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.


Once the ionised gas and dust leave the comet they move on their own subject to their own inertial forces, gravitation and the solar wind.
The ionised gas is essentially part the solar wind, though primarily CO+ rather than electrons and protons.
The dust will be more or less affected by the solar wind depending on the particle size, as a result the dust tail can be quite spread out as in.

Completely wrong.

The gas in the comet's coma is being affected by the solar wind.

The dust in the comet's coma is being affected by the solar radiation pressure.

The SOHO spacecraft videos is exhibiting the SOLAR WIND EFFECT ON THE COMET'S TAIL.

In all three videos, no such effect can be seen at all, as the comets pass very close to the Sun.


https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/cometarygastail1.jpg

This image does not help your cause at all. It features an elongated tail/coma

Here are the comet 17P/Holmes images showing A SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE COMA, in full defiance of solar radiation pressure, solar wind, solar gravitational force:

While passing close to the Sun, the tail is always at a constant angle with respect to the Sun. It is not being deflected by direct solar wind blasts at all.

So you are completely ignoring the vast majority of the video and instead focusing on a tiny portion, a portion which shows the solar wind basically blowing the tail away so no discernable tail is noticed, before it is re-established pointing away from the sun yet again.

Do not try to fool your readers

Good advice, you should follow it.
No one is buying your crap.
The video clearly shows the tail of the comet being affected by solar winds.

Repeating the same lies on other comets wont fool anyone either.
The videos clearly show the comets being effected by the solar wind.

The video clearly shows the tail of the comet being affected by solar winds.

More evidence that we are dealing with a chatbot which is programmed to deny, nothing else.

Even someone who does have a cognitive dissonance problem cannot lie like this in the face of coherent and straightforward evidence in the form of videos.

But a chatbot can.


So you are completely ignoring the vast majority of the video and instead focusing on a tiny portion


On the contrary, I'm focusing on the majority of the video showing a straight path right next to the Sun, where the tail does not move at all: the full blast of the solar wind does not affect the coma.

The tiny portion at the end is of no concern to us here, since the portion that matters where the comet is moving right next to the Sun, is missing any effect of the solar wind upon the comet's coma/tail.

If the formula for the lag/aberration angle is useless right next to the Sun, certainly the same formula is null and void at a far greater distance from the Sun.

Here is the video itself:

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

The tail does simply trail along behind the comet, while passing next to the Sun, in the face of direct solar wind blasts.

0:00 - 0:13 the VAST MAJORITY OF THE VIDEO shows a straight path of the comet, completely unaffected by the direct solar wind blast.

This means that the following formula is rendered null and void by the video:

tan ε = V/ω

V = component of the comet's orbital velocity perpendicular to the radius vector
ω = radial solar-wind speed
ε = tail lag or aberration angle

While passing very close the Sun, NO TAIL LAG ANGLE IS VISIBLE AT ALL, none whatsoever, in the face of direct solar wind blasts.


The videos clearly show the comets being effected by the solar wind.

Your lying statement has just been refuted.

More evidence to the contrary of your assertion.

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

A speed of 450km/s is considered a high speed for the solar wind.

However, comet NEAT was affected by the onslaught of a 916km/s speed solar wind blast:

http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML (the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft)

The full blast does not affect the comet's coma at all.


Comet C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS) completely unaffected by direct solar wind blasts:





The tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.


The evidence is more than clear: the solar wind does not affect the comet's coma at all.


More proofs.

Comet 17P/Holmes completely unaffected by the solar wind, solar radiation pressure, solar gravitational forces:



26.10.2007



27.10.2007



31.10.2007



31.10.2007



5.11.2007


You have just been proven wrong, as usual.