Note: See updates below for the ISON ISOFF ISON nature of this comet that has everybody guessing. Picture at right also updated to reflect the new “zombie” status of this comet.
Looks like ISON has disintegrated during its turn around the sun. Given the radiation (estimated temperature 5,000F/2,760C – hot enough to vaporize rock), solar wind, and the tidal-forces (even though smallish, thanks Gavin) associated with its proximity and nearly 800,000 mph speed around the turn about that time, I’m not surprised. Watch the second video below where it goes “poof” (h/t to reader “David”)
NASA’s spaceweather.com reports:
Comet ISON is making its closest approach to the sun, and evidence is mounting that the nucleus of the comet has disintegrated. Watch the head of the comet fade dramatically as it approaches the sun in this SOHO coronagraph movie:
(may take a minute to load)
![sundiver_anim3[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sundiver_anim31.gif)
The movie spans a day and a half period from Nov. 27th (01:41 UT) to 28th (15:22 UT). In the early hours of the 27th, Comet ISON brightens dramatically, saturating the pixels in the digital camera of the SOHO’s coronagraph. By mid-day on the 28th, however, the comet’s head appears to fade. This is a sign that the nucleus has likely fallen apart. That would make ISON a headless comet–more appropriate for Halloween than Thanksgiving.
Researchers working with the Solar Dynamics Observatory report that they are seeing nothing along the track that ISON was expected to follow through the sun’s atmosphere.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Watch it go “poof” here:
============================================================
UPDATE2: NASA JPL Insider Amy Mainzer tweets some last minute hope that ISON may be “undead”
http://twitter.com/AmyMainzer/status/406179229487742976
A zombie comet, how cool is that?
============================================================
UPDATE3: Now it seems back again, but looking entirely different than before. A number of astronomers indicate they don’t know what is left of it, maybe a chunk, maybe a smooshed drawn out nucleus or something else. Image from SOHO’s coronagraph:
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 7:54 am
Hard to conceptualize that a body making a hard turn at 800,000 mph feels no force
I would hardly call it a hard turn since for all intents and purposes, from a kilometre before to a kilometre after perihelion, it went in a straight line. However there was no net force right at perihelion since the centripetal force, given by F = mv^2/r was balanced by the gravitational force from the sun, given by F = GMm/r^2.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm
“and scalps and prizes to collect and to enjoy the pleasantries of pseudo-science.”
==============
Yep.
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm
But the new tail on Ison right now aligns neither with the orbit nor radially from the sun. So the conventional theory has failed.
Nonsense, conventional theory explains things quite well:
“The dust tail consists of dust particles that have been pushed out of the coma by radiation pressure from the sun. Compared to the ION tail, the dust tail is morphologically diffuse, and appears white or slightly pink (because the dust grains reflect sunlight slightly better at longer wavelengths than at shorter wavelengths). The dust particles in the tail are individually in orbit about the sun, each with slightly less attraction to the sun than the nucleus because of the effect of radiation pressure. This causes the dust tail to be curved as the comet swings around the sun.”
Yes, you are the problem. I see how you operate. You’re acting like a troll, who lurks around these discussions, waiting to insert some seeming intelligent comments. But if the subject matter is beyond your expertise, you fake a response by Googling some stuff and throw it out, hoping it will sound intelligent.
If some one disputes your input, then you try to blame them for failing to understand, or similar subterfuge to place the onus back on them.
You’ve done this several times with me over the past day or two. Now I see you playing the same gambit with meemoe_uk. But he can also see you have no real expertise, beyond trivial Googling. You really don’t understand the problems we’re talking about.
You reap what you sow.
😐
u.k.(us) says:
November 29, 2013 at 12:53 pm
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 12:33 pm
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm
GAME OVER
You throwing in the towel is accepted. Have a nice day.
Thanks, you too. And whatever you do, please don’t stop throwing out your proverbs, poetry, pleonasms and platitudes. It makes a nice change from serious science.
++++++++++++++++
And just where do you think this comment might take you ?, back into the realm of science ?,you didn’t present any.
You’ve presumably skipped quite a few posts… One or two quotes from my previous posts, in which I refer to the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE which I take to be the ONLY legitimate basis for any SCIENTIFIC THEORY:
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:29 am
[…]
“The case is clear: Ison, like the four comet nuclei we have so far actually managed to image from pretty close-up, is not a “dirty iceball” but a big lump of solid rock, which displayed intense discharge phenomena with build-up of increasing voltage difference as it moved rapidly towards the positively charged sun. It seems, as meemoe_uk suggests, that “when ISON flew into the CME it earthed its voltage ( or Suned it ), so the glowing stopped”, a phenomenon which is totally in accordance with the expectations of EU theory but totally inexplicable by mainstream, gravity-only Big Bang theory.” (unless, of course, the glowing stopped because ISON had been destroyed, which is clearly not the case…)
[…]
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:44 am
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:36 am
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:33 am
Glad anyway that you have nothing to say about the substance of my posts.
“There is nothing to say because there is no substance.
If you need a general refutation of EU, this link is a good place to start:http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html”
I have nothing against a site which, on the face of it, combats creationist ideas in astronomy, quite the contrary in fact: one of the reasons why I turned away some years ago from the Big Bang theory was precisely that it is the BB which enshrines the ULTIMATE creationist theory. EU theory, on the other hand has absolutely NOTHING to say about the nature or the time of the origin of the Universe. This is already a huge step forward in scientific thinking: I’m not saying I don’t believe in a possible Initial Creation, but simply that we can obviously know nothing about it, as Big Bangers claim we can.
Apart from that, I don’t need a refutation of EU, because it proceeds from correct scientific method in that it is evidence-based, in the same way that climate skepticism is evidence-based. I went down the same intellectual path in moving from Big Bang to EU theory as I did a year or so later in switching from the warmist camp to the climate-skeptic camp, once I had realized that the same forms of obfuscation were being practiced in both so-called “sciences”. Elegant maths and computer models can do nothing in the face of hard, irrefutable, observational evidence, whatever the field under study.
Do I need to repeat that like many other “skeptics”, the reason for my abandoning the mainstream, Establishment positions I previously held for many years (both in cosmology and in climate “science”) was the realization that the paradigm being presented by the Establishment was falsified by every new piece of observational evidence and that the scientific method was being travestied (sorry, Mr. Trenberth…). It then just becomes a matter of intellectual honesty: personally, I’m in the fortunate position of not depending for my livelihood on any sort of university or institutional funding in these areas so I don’t need to compromise on anything.
You had your dictionary opened to the “p” section, by the looks of your comment ?
No, I know precisely why I wrote those four “p” words and can quote the passage(s) in Mister lsvalgaard’s posts which each one refers to:
-“proverb”: “There is nothing wrong with ignorance. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is an abomination.” (Posted November 29, 2013 at 9:11 am)
-“poetry” (or “hand-waving”): “Don’t you see that by willfully wearing blinkers you are missing the glorious picture of where and when we came from that we have teased out of the wonderfully precise observations of the past ten years? (Posted November 29, 2013 at 10:55 am)
– pleonasm (in the sense of circular, self-proving reasoning but nothing else): “On a technical point: there was no plasma in the Universe starting about 380,000 after the BB and for the next several hundred millions years, at which time gravity had caused the first stars to form and by their UV radiation ionize the intergalactic medium. What does that fact do to EU theory?» (Posted November 29, 2013 at 10:55 am)
– platitude: “throwing in the towel” (among others…) (posted November 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm)
For my part, I will gladly assume responsibility for a fifth “p” word: the PREDICTION which I made in my post of November 29, 2013 at 3:29 am:
“Now that this big lump of rock has emerged on the other side with a fantastic gravity assist and a speed still in excess of 600,000 mph, the charge difference will once again increase very rapidly, the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….” Indeed, since the mainstream astronomers, with all their “dirty snowball” preconceptions, were announcing the premature demise of ISON as having “fizzled out” or having been destroyed during perihelion, I don’t see how on earth they’re going to account for (and even have the cheek to attempt to account for) a possible display of a Great Comet in the coming days and weeks which, since all the “ice” they still conceptually hang on to must have been completely boiled away, could thus only be the result of electric discharge phenomena.
Leif says This causes the dust tail to be curved as the comet swings around the sun.”
It’s not the ‘dust’ tail that’s the prob. The ‘dust’ tail is in the right place.
It’s ‘the’ ion tail. It’s been about 45 to 90 deg out of radial alignment since it appeared on LASCO C3.
“Wikipedia has a good article on that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit but the table for selected examples is wrong [the unit should be km not meter].”
I fixed it for you.
Is the orientation of the comet magnetic in nature? and could the magnetic orientation of the comet’s nucleus be the cause of the shape and size of the comets tail? My thinking is, if the comet is magnetic in nature and one side of its nucleus is naturally attracted to the sun as it progresses along its trajectory, as it approached aphelion the turbulence from solar winds may have knocked the nucleus off this magnetic orientation, resulting in the reduction in the formation of the comets tail as-well as the solar wind dispersing it, so, as the comet rights its magnetic orientation and realigns its natural magnetic polarities with the sun, we should begin to see it brighten up and form its tail again.
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm
the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE which I take to be the ONLY legitimate basis for any SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Current astrophysical theory is firmly based on observational evidence. On ALL of the evidence.
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm
It’s ‘the’ ion tail. It’s been about 45 to 90 deg out of radial alignment since it appeared on LASCO C3.
There are such things as perspective and projection…
J. Sperry says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm
I fixed it for you.
For ‘us’. Thanks.
Sparks says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Is the orientation of the comet magnetic in nature? and could the magnetic orientation of the comet’s nucleus be the cause of the shape and size of the comets tail?
No, that is not the way it works. But the solar wind is magnetic and as it and the comet meet the magnetic field is ‘draped’ around the comet. If the magnetic field in the solar wind changes direction, e.g. switches polarity as a current sheet is passing the comet, the solar wind will steal the tail. Another one grows out rapidly. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/01oct_encke/
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm
It’s ‘the’ ion tail. It’s been about 45 to 90 deg out of radial alignment since it appeared on LASCO C3.
There are such things as perspective and projection…
Not to speak about aberration: since the tail ions move away at 300 km/s and and comet is also moving at 300 km/s, the tail will be at a 45 degree angle…
http://www.spacetimetravel.org/aur/node3.html
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm
===============
Darn, I should just keep my mouth shut.
That’s no fun 🙂
http://www.spaceweather.com has an update and a good video recommendation..
“””Before the flyby, experts had made many predictions about what might happen to the comet, ranging from utter disintegration to glorious survival. No one predicted both.
Karl Battams of NASA’s Comet ISON Observing Campaign says, “[colleague] Matthew Knight and I are ripping our hair out right now as we know that so many people in the public, the media and in science teams want to know what’s happened. We’d love to know that too! Right now, here’s our working hypothesis:
“As comet ISON plunged towards to the Sun, it began to fall apart, losing not giant fragments but at least a lot of reasonably sized chunks. There’s evidence of very large dust in the long thin tail we saw in the [SOHO coronagraph] images. Then, as ISON plunged through the corona, it continued to fall apart and vaporize, losing its coma and tail completely just like sungrazing Comet Lovejoy did in 2011. What emerged from the Sun was a small but perhaps somewhat coherent nucleus that has resumed emitting dust and gas for at least the time being.”
Battams emphasizes that it is too soon to tell how big the remnant nucleus is or how bright the resurgent comet will ultimately become. “We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end. We ask that you please be patient with us for a couple of days as we analyze the data and try to work out what is happening.”
Astrophotographer Babak Tafreshi has edited an HD video (
)
that compares views of ISON from both of SOHO’s coronagraphs. “It seems the comet could become a naked eye object with several degrees of scattered tail by Dec 2nd or 3rd,” he predicts…”””
The rest of Babak Tafreshi’s comment:
“It seems the comet could become a naked eye object with several degrees of scattered tail by Dec 2nd or 3rd,” he predicts. “It’s not the comet of the century for sure, and fainter than the Lovejoy sungrazer in Dec. 2011, but an interesting imaging target is just a few nights away!”
I hope he’s right about it being at least bright enough to be naked eye visible and a beautiful long tail would be nice. I’m hoping to get some pics of it next week.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“Current astrophysical theory is firmly based on observational evidence. On ALL of the evidence.”
In that case, why does every new observation (of comets, of course but of virtually every other heavenly object or phenomenon too) invariably elicit comments from astronomers and science writers whose allegiance to the MS is never in doubt such as:
“This is a surprising/amazing/ extraordinary finding” (translate: “the theory is completely at a loss to account for it”)
“We still have much to learn about xxxx” (translate: “We still haven’t got the faintest clue about…”)
“The theory on xxxx may need to be further revised” (translate: “The theory on xxxx has just been falsified, again, but we’re going to fix it…”)
“Scientists say they need to carry out more research to fully understand…” (no translation needed)
Etc. etc.
As an immediate example, just watch the upcoming reporting of the ISON enigma, everyone, and make up your own minds whether, as in climate matters, the so-called experts are so sure that the “science is settled”…!
I have done a recent post on some of the lame Electric Comet claims.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/11/electric-comets-failures-of-electric.html
A commenter has added some additional info of how we actually know how charges behave in space.
BTW, the recent LASCO view of ISON is consistent with the tail roughly along the Earth-Sun line after perihelion.
Carla says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm
“Battams emphasizes that it is too soon to tell how big the remnant nucleus is or how bright the resurgent comet will ultimately become. “We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end. We ask that you please be patient with us for a couple of days as we analyze the data and try to work out what is happening.”
Nufsaid already, methinks. No translation necessary. Where is the “theory firmly based on observational evidence”?
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 4:15 pm
=================
If you are gonna do it, call it what it is.
Monday morning quarterbacking.
There are such things as perspective and projection…
Not to speak about aberration: since the tail ions move away at 300 km/s and and comet is also moving at 300 km/s, the tail will be at a 45 degree angle…
If these factors were knocking ‘the’ ion tail out of solar radial alignment by 90 degrees from our point of view they would be also doing something similar to the ‘dust’ tail. But they aren’t. The dust tail is acting like there’s no 3D view motion tricks.
And also perspective and projection can’t cause such distortions of view.
u linked to a special relativity page, which isn’t relevant to ison kinematics,.
Good grief Leif, you can get away with and hide behind a lot of astrophysical technical talk on WUWT, but I pushed u into the realm of 3D perspective, of which everyone can claim to have good intuition. As long as people know what radial alignment should look like they can see ‘the’ ion tail just hasn’t pointed in the right direction.
wbrozek says:
November 29, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 7:54 am
Hard to conceptualize that a body making a hard turn at 800,000 mph feels no force
“I would hardly call it a hard turn since for all intents and purposes, from a kilometre before to a kilometre after perihelion, it went in a straight line. However there was no net force right at perihelion since the centripetal force, given by F = mv^2/r was balanced by the gravitational force from the sun, given by F = GMm/r^2.”
Read ALL of what I said. There was no turn. Things travel in a straight line in curved space when in the presence of mass. Mass curves space.
And to think for several days I have been lamenting that there have not been any lively solar discussions of late. Thanks to all.
John Day says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:15 am
@jim G
>That is why I said to think of it as curved space, NOT a force! Read what I said.
“I did.
Somehow you think the notion of ‘curved space’ is necessary to understand gravitional mechanics. It’s not. Newton conceived all of this (including orbiting satellites in free fall) without having any idea of space-time curvature. ”
It is not a matter of how one thinks of it but rather how it is best approximated. Newtonian physics does not properly predict the observed orbit of Mercury, relativity does it much better.
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm
That was the Comet’s debye shield being popped, which released all its plasma in its corona. Of course plasma is so spare that once it is free it is blown around effortlessly by any force.
Also the electric discharge may have atomized some of the comets rocky surface into a vapour.
Thanks for your reaction, but I still have my doubts. If it was just the comet’s plasma, that would not be much substance (“spare” as you say) and doesn’t explain the big “poof”. If it was atomized matter, it’s mass would retain the momentum of the comet resulting in a forward tilted “poof” which I didn’t see.
So I am still stuck with the idea of a coincidental CME.
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“Read ALL of what I said. There was no turn. Things travel in a straight line in curved space when in the presence of mass. Mass curves space.”
=====================
Seems to make sense.
Did it survive its passage ? The comet ?
If it was just the comet’s plasma, that would not be much substance (“spare” as you say) and doesn’t explain the big “poof”. If it was atomized matter, it’s mass would retain the momentum of the comet resulting in a forward tilted “poof” which I didn’t see.
Ok, it was the debye shield popping AND the momentum of the CME. the CME has a lot of KE and would disperse the comets coronal+tail plasma, while the plasma had some glow left to make the poof more visible.
The atomized dust doesn’t need much consideration.