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:
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 7:30 am
while the secondary angled at 90deg to its old tail is turning into its main tail. What u think to that Leif?
A comet has three tails: an ion tail and two dust tails. The latter lie along the orbit and the former is directed away from the sun. So close to the sun there can be, and often is, a large angle between the two. This is quite normal and nothing special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitail
?????…Any picture “optical” ???????
lsvalgaard says:
“free fall” and reply.
Hard to conceptualize that a body making a hard turn at 800,000 mph feels no force until one considers that it is moving in a straight line and space itself is curved causing the appearance of a hard turn. This is the deception of considering gravity as a force as opposed to a curvature of space/time. If a force were applied, as say a rocket engine, that would be a different story.
Leif said: “The difference in gSun that the 2 km diameter of ISON makes is 0.00007 m/s/s. ISON’s own g force is [based on a mass of 3E12 kg] is 0.00020 m/s/s or three times larger than the tidal force.”
Thanks for coming up trumps Leif.
Rich.
Jim G says: “This is the deception of considering gravity as a force as opposed to a curvature of space/time. If a force were applied, as say a rocket engine, that would be a different story.”
Jim, I’m sorry but I have to disagree; we don’t need Einsteinian mechanics for this, as Newtonian will do. The point about free fall is that, ignoring the tidal effect, every particle of the nucleus experiences the same force so they all accelerate equally and feel no internal stress. When we do take the tidal effect into account, so the near side is pulled a little harder than the far side, there is some measurable internal stress. Leif has kindly calculated it, and even if the nucleus consisted solely of tennis balls lightly glued together it would not come apart. (There would just be a nasty rubbery smell as they burnt off from the outside.)
Rich.
More likely than whatever “forces” were in action, simply the heat and any CME particles or other paticulate matter acted like a shotgun on a clay pigeon.
See – owe to Rich says:
My point is that when we think of gravity as a “force” we think wrong. When we think of it as a curvature of space there are no g-forces in the turn. The tidal “forces” are merely differences in that curvature and can, indeed, have effects. How we think of the situation keeps us from making wrong interpretations. I was not arguing with Leif. Such has little effect upon him in any event. No offense intended to him or you.
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:24 am
I was not arguing with Leif. Such has little effect upon him in any event.
If your argument has merit it would have effect…
@_Jim
>Already covered that aspect, but thanks anyway. (Day late and a dollar short.)
Again you try to push the blame on others for your faulty replies.
You did not cover the chronology of this word usage with respect to the use of the word ‘zombie’ in popular American English culture. Instead you just dwellt on the social/anthropological signficance with respect to African and Haitian culture (“voudou” etc).
You failed to correct your claim of “1982” as the first usage of the word ‘zombie’ in American culture, even after it was pointed out by See-owe-2-Rich that 1982 could not be the earliest citation of that word.
I provided an English word origin date of 1871, citing a credible authority in word etymology.
So I it looks like you came up short, not me.
😐
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:30 am
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:24 am
“I was not arguing with Leif. Such has little effect upon him in any event.
If your argument has merit it would have effect…”
Doubtful, as you seem to most often consider yourself the final arbitor od “merit”. But Happy belated Thanksgiving in any event.
Jim G, the problem with thinking of curved space(-time) is that it is only light that follows the curved space. So I think that the concept of force is more meaningful to most people. Only think Einsteinian physics when the velocity gets to be much more than 0.001c!
The more interesting question which I should like to see debated is: What Caused The Sudden Dissipation Of ISON’s Coma Just Before Perihelion?
Was it electrical? How could anything mechanical or thermodynamic explain the extreme rapidity?
Rich.
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:24 am
“See – owe to Rich says:
My point is that when we think of gravity as a “force” we think wrong. When we think of it as a curvature of space there are no g-forces in the turn.”
So Jim G, if a star’s light were to near-graze the sun (Eddington’s famous photograph), it would be captured by the “groove” caused by the sun’s gravity and would forever circle the sun. Indeed, in your view of the phenomenon, the “groove” should capture all the comets that ever were and they should be in a merry-go-round forever. If there are no forces, how do nearly all comets pull themselves away from the sun once they have a close approach?
As ‘glow’ generally involves ‘plasma’ processes (excited gases) and therefore requires gases at a certain pressure (probably non-existent in the vicinity of the comet) between which electrons travel, how would this modify the “GLOW-mode” discharge process
If there was no plasma then the comet’s rocky surface would glow.
> (is this a discharge as in a Neon or Argon lamp)?
Yes , same thing.
A further question, what is the method of continuing ‘charge separation’ (or charge accumulation) such that the glow or discharge process may be continued (made continuous, to support continued or continuous glow, etc) by the comet-mass in order to achieve these phenoms?
As Leif insisted in prior exchanges with me, simple, common interaction between otherwise neutral molecules repeated en-mass can accumulate huge charge separation. Megavolt lightning storms on Earth accumulate by super cooled water colliding with ice in the clouds and striping charge. Rub 2 dry materials together, one will strip electrons from the other. It’s how a van-de-graf works, rubber on nylon or silk. On a hot dry day, driving in your car will build up charge of thousands of volts by friction with the air.
This common charge separation phenomena seen on Earth is even more present in space.
In space, the duration of charge build up is measured in years or decades or longer instead of seconds to hours and the surfaces being rubbed are orders of magnitude greater.
Comets experience the solar wind. The solar wind strips charge ( I don’t know which sign ) off the comet, like air striping charge of a moving car on a hot dry day. This goes on for years.
This way comets can spontaneously explode due to too much charge out in space. Also they are prone to discharge when they come close to another body. There is denser plasma near other bodies. Plasma that is denser is highly conductive.
props to Leif for helping me understand how massive charge separation in space occurs. It works for all bodies in space, not just comets.
See – owe to Rich says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:49 am
“Jim G, the problem with thinking of curved space(-time) is that it is only light that follows the curved space.”
Anything traveling through space travels in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. If space is curved by mass in the vacinity then everything travels in a straight line through that curved space, not just light. The planet Mercury’s orbit was corrected from the Newtonian concept, which was wrong, by using relativity and the concept of curved space/time as a correction.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 7:23 am
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:29 am
As a fellow “astronomo-sceptic”, I totally agree with what meemoe_uk has been saying about an electric interpretation of what is unfolding before us.
Man, your ignorance runs deep.
Many thanks for the compliment…
My understanding, after a couple of years of DAILY visits to WUWT, was that this site, unlike many others, is above this kind of gratuitous personal attack, which is based on neither observational evidence nor on straightforward logic. But perhaps I’ve been missing something…
In addition, you know absolutely nothing about me (the post you quote from was my first on WUWT). So what allows you to throw around this sort of ill-informed insult? Must I assume you’re part of the astronomy Establishment which is so consistently at an utter loss to explain the actual observations of comets (images of rocky, often blackened nuclei displaying cliffs,” impact craters” and clear electrical discharge features, “unbelievable” samples of minerals brought back from Comet Wild 2 by the Stardust Mission, that sort of thing) and still clings to the gaslight-era mantra of Fred Whipple’s “dirty snowball” model so as to try to still preserve the tattered patchwork of the BB theory?
Your failure to address the actual SUBSTANCE of my post, explaining WHY I “totally agree with what meemoe_uk” seems to me to say it all….
I repeat that “The observational evidence being provided by ISON (along with other comets) is to mainstream astronomy what the 17 year-long Pause is to mainstream CAGW. It’s called falsifying a theory.”
Gary Pearse says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:53 am
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:24 am
“See – owe to Rich says:
My point is that when we think of gravity as a “force” we think wrong. When we think of it as a curvature of space there are no g-forces in the turn.”
“So Jim G, if a star’s light were to near-graze the sun (Eddington’s famous photograph), it would be captured by the “groove” caused by the sun’s gravity and would forever circle the sun. Indeed, in your view of the phenomenon, the “groove” should capture all the comets that ever were and they should be in a merry-go-round forever. If there are no forces, how do nearly all comets pull themselves away from the sun once they have a close approach?”
Don’t catch your logic. There is no “groove”. It is not closed space, just curved, and if the comet approached at the correct angle and distance it could be captured of crash into the sun.
Corrections to poor typing: “of merit” “or crash” in previous posts of mine.
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:46 am
Doubtful, as you seem to most often consider yourself the final arbitor of “merit”.
An argument falls on its own demerit.
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:55 am
This common charge separation phenomena seen on Earth is even more present in space
The difference between the Earth and Space is that the air is not a conductor, but a space plasma is. In a plasma the conductivity is so high that any charge imbalance immediately shorts out, so there are no separated charges in Space.
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:01 am
In addition, you know absolutely nothing about me
Your comment said all there is to say. There is nothing wrong with ignorance [I am ignorant of many things]. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is an abomination.
Hollywood referenced Zombies as early as 1940 in “Ghost Breakers” with Bob Hope:
re: John Day says November 29, 2013 at 8:41 am
The facts are before us; if you insist on disputing them further I suggest given your previously cited ‘acumen, command of the facts and authority’ address/direct your complaints to their original sources (i.e. writers, authors and researchers at their various uni’s or websites.)
Good day. (I mean that as a departing salutation.)
.
re: meemoe_uk says November 29, 2013 at 8:55 am
Hand-waving and filibustering; you have made not any technical points that will withstand serious cross examination.
.
re: Budahmon says November 29, 2013 at 9:16 am
Someone else ‘behind the curve’. (Ppl, you have to keep up to be taken seriously on a rebuttal)
IOW, your ‘cite’ is a non-accredited pop-culture work.
.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:11 am
“ French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:01 am
In addition, you know absolutely nothing about me
Your comment said all there is to say. There is nothing wrong with ignorance [I am ignorant of many things]. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is an abomination.”
OK Mister Isvalgaard. Game over. I didn’t understand where you were coming from straight away. I’ve got better things to do than to be drawn into swapping proverbs….
Glad anyway that you have nothing to say about the substance of my posts.
@jim G
>Hard to conceptualize that a body making a hard turn at 800,000 mph feels no force …
You seem to be thinking of the forces you would feel in roller coaster ride: every turn, sharp or not, is sensible to the occupants of the trolley.
But a roller-coaster trolley is not in free fall. It’s constrained by the rails to go in directions it would not naturally go (if not constrained). That what causes the forces you feel.
Thought experiment: imagine you’re in a roller coaster, where the trolley breaks free from the rails. _Now_ you’re in “free fall”. For the duration of the ride you will feel no forces.
Assume the roller coaster was on top of Comet Ison, when it breaks free. Now you’re still “falling”, being pulled towards the Sun by its gravity.But your velocity (and the comet) has a large horizontal component, such that your motion vector points away from the Sun, towards Earth. So you (and the comet) are still technically falling, feeling no forces, even though you’re in an elliptical orbit which will eventually carry you to the outer limits of the solar system.
The only forces you might feel are braking forces caused by “atmospheric drag” or if you’re ‘struck’ by plasma filaments shooting out from the photosphere. But the corona “atmosphere” is too thin for you to feel any braking forces. And the filaments also are very thin, but could exert a force on you. But these forces are evidently very small because the imagery seems to show Zombie-Ison moving in what looks like a ‘free-falling’ orbit, i.e. not being pushed laterally into multiple paths. It’s pretty much like a vacuum up there. The _total_ mass of the corona is about 1% the mass of the entire Martian atmosphere, which is already pretty thin. Imagine Mars’ atmosphere expanded to solar proporitions.
😐
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