Holmes Comet Coma Grows Bigger Than The Sun

coondoggie passed us a NetworkWorld article, as he does, noting that there is now an object in our solar system bigger than Sol. The Holmes comet has a huge coma, with a diameter scientists are now calculating to be larger than our own middle-sized star. "Scientists don't seem to have a guess as to how big it will ultimately become. The Holmes coma's diameter on Nov. 9 was 869,900 miles (1.4 million kilometers), based on measurements by Rachel Stevenson, Jan Kleyna and Pedro Lacerda of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy. The sun's diameter, stated differently by various sources, is about 864,900 miles (1.392 million kilometers)."

Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, don't try to sound cool by calling the sun "Sol". It just sounds pompous.

Correct != pompous

[Anonymous Coward]

Our sun's name is "Sol." It is correct to call it by its proper name.

I don't think it makes the speaker sound pompous at all. Appealing to one's own ethos to strengthen an argument makes someone sound pompous. Quoting the law to justify an opinion about morality makes someone sound pompous. Using the word "Virii" to mean "more than one computer virus" makes a speaker sound pompous, and is also incorrect.

But simply speaking in a technically precise manner, especially to a science-literate target audience on a techie/geeky website, is not in the least bit pompous.

I would go so far as to call it "expected."

Re:

[leathered]

Indeed, it reminds of a Mexican beer that tastes like soapy piss.

Re:

[Ngarrang]

Indeed, it reminds of a Mexican beer that tastes like soapy piss.

I do not want to know how you would even know this.

Regarding the use of Sol for the Sun, yeah, it comes off a little pretentious, but it is the name given to it, even if it translates back to 'sun'. Latin names make everything sound cooler, anywho. Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Re:

[fm6]

Or maybe less parochial? If there are any inhabitants of planets circling nearby suns, I imagine they'd object to our referring to our sun as the sun.

Which is why SF often refers to "the sun" as "Sol", "the moon" as "Luna", etc. Probably where the poster picked up the habit.

Re:

[tjstork]

Or maybe less parochial? If there are any inhabitants of planets circling nearby suns, I imagine they'd object to our referring to our sun as the sun.

It's silly that they do that. We call our Sun, the Sun, and our moon, the Moon. It's simple and its accurate. If the inhabitants of other planets on other stars call their suns something, they could call it whatever they want, and I highly doubt they speak English... We might have to call Rigel "blahtak", or something.

Re:

[spun]

And we'll just call you 'person' rather than calling you by your name. A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us. In any language used by creatures living on planets, there will be a word for 'sun.' But 'Sol' will still be unique. When we have colonies on Mars, what will the people living there be referring to when they say, "The moon has just risen?"

And 'we' do not call our sun, 'the sun,' except in English. Stop being so parochial, I mean, don't you think we shou

Re:

[PCM2]

A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us.

Got any data to back that up? I know they call it Sol a lot in sci-fi paperbacks and on Star Trek, but do any scientists actually use that designation?

Re:

[spun]

Hmm, you know, I just took it for granted that scientists call it that because science journalists tend to call it that at least as often as they call it the sun. And 'Sol' means 'Sun' in Latin, and scientists love to use Latin. It also means sun in most Latin derived languages, so even if there are no English speaking scientists who call it sol, there are many scientists who have no other word for it.

Re:

[foobsr]

In any language used by creatures living on planets, there will be a word for 'sun.'

It seems there (probably) exist 'ejected' planets which could sustain life.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070910_sunless-planets.htm [world-science.net]

Apart from that, it is likely to be difficult to make predictions with regard to language (Living without Numbers or Time [spiegel.de]).

CC.

Re:Name

[h4rm0ny]

A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us.

Oh no! No. This is as bad as all those people who have started pronouncing Uranus "your-an-us" rather than "your-a-nus" because they think it sounds more scientific that way. As if sounding "scientific" is a good thing as opposed to trying to make things as understandable as possible (and funny). A sun is not a type of thing. You can say it to mean that, put it with a lower case 's' and people will know what you mean, but we have a word that specifically means that with no ambiguity and the word is star. We have been calling the Sun "the Sun" for a long, long time. Other languages have their own words for the Sun and they are direct equivalents. They don't mean "stars" or even "stars with planets around them." Each word means, quite specifically The Sun. And the interesting thing is that one of those languages is Latin and its word for the Sun is "Sol." It is the direct equivalent word with the same meaning. Why you think translating something into another language is suddenly correct and using the native word incorrect I don't know. But I am suspicious that it is that same creeping desire on the part of some people to sound "scientific." The English speaking world has used the Sun for centuries quite happily without any ambiguity which has appeared out of nowhere in recent years.

The overwhelming majority of English speakers call it the Sun and don't mean stars and wouldn't think to mean stars. Almost nobody calls it Sol. Why introduce confusion?

The Sun. The Stars. Uranus [rude pronunciation].

Thank you.

Re:

[LordSnooty]

Exactly, people use the non-rude pronunciation precisely to avoid sniggering and off-topic giggles about butts. It's not about sounding scientific as such.

Re:

[magarity]

Where were you to back me up when the geology teacher in grade 11 asked on a quiz 'what is the name of the star this planet orbits?' He marked me wrong for putting 'Sol' instead of 'the Sun' (same for Luna and Terra on the same quiz). I pointed out the name of the thing was indeed 'Sol' and that putting 'the' in front of it meant the word sun wasn't a proper name. He admitted that even though I was technically correct it wasn't the answer he was looking for so 10% off for each of the 3 anyway. Now THAT

Re:

[tjstork]

And 'we' do not call our sun, 'the sun,' except in English.

By the way, the naming convention of "first in class" is also used in shipbuilding. There is a USS Nimitz, and, then, there is a Nimitz class carrier. The British came up with the first in class naval tradition and we copied it. For example, during World War II, they had the King George V, and the King George V class battleship.

So, to call the Sun a sun and the Moon the moon is entirely accurate and consistent with the human tradition. Certainl

Re:

[spun]

I've been here since Chips & Dips. The reason I keep coming back is because, in general, people here respect intelligence. If you haven't noticed that, maybe it's because you don't have anything people here respect. Sure, there are dumb-asses here, but that happens anytime you get enough people together. They generally aren't tolerated. And 'doesn't agree with my pet political, philosophical, scientific, or social theories' is not the same as 'anti-intellectual.'

Re:Name

[drfireman]

I inhabit a planet circling a nearby "sun." Actually, we call our "sun" Sol, and we find it a little insulting that your SF writers have assumed the name was unclaimed. Stop it. We don't call our "moon" Luna, so you're safe there, but I have to say, on behalf of my people, that it sounds stupid, and "moon" wasn't taken anyway (we call our little satellite thing "Kodak"). There's lots of other stuff you guys have wrong, too, but here on our planet we're not really supposed to be reading Slashdot during work hours. Maybe I'll post from home later.

Re:

[Belial6]

Unless Gene Roddenberry is correct, and somehow every creature in the galaxy speaks English, I would say that not only would they not be offended by the word Sun being use to describe the star that we circle, but they might just be willing to call our glichblick'click'click by the same name we use, which is Sun. The big fiery ball in the sky is called Sun by [pulling number out of ass] 99.9% of all English speaking humans. That means that in English, the big fiery ball in the sky's name is... That's right

Re:Name

[fm6]

Hey, get your pop culture references straight. The aliens on Star Trek don't speak English, their voices are automatically translated by the "universal translator" which also has the ability to warp the light around their faces so their lips stay in sync with the English version of what they're saying.

Damn you

[benhocking]

The big fiery ball in the sky is called Sun by [pulling number out of ass] 99.9% of all English speaking humans.

I'll never be able to use that number again. From now on I'll have to say 0.1% less than 100% or something like that...

Really, what possessed you to store it up there in the first place?!?

Re:

[fm6]

I'm sure that all aliens within TV range [wikipedia.org] speak English.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Until /. has at least one non-earthian member posting, when anyone refers to THE sun, we know which one it is.

Re:Name

[Anonymous Coward]

So if it's bigger that Sol, does it look as big as Luna from Terra?

Comet P/17 Holmes visibility, naked eye aspect

[fyngyrz]

So if it's bigger that Sol, does it look as big as Luna from Terra?

It looks exactly like this. [flickr.com]

That's a shot with a 50mm portrait lens - no telescope, no magnification, nothing. The comet is plainly visible as an orb, yes, just as the sun is.

Re:Comet P/17 Holmes visibility, naked eye aspect

[fyngyrz]

I'm quite serious. Read the text I supplied with the image. The "orbs" you refer to are not resolved images of the edges of stars, they are simply burned out areas on the camera's sensor as the atmosphere's lensing moves the stars around over the many seconds of the exposure. Those stars are points of light, no more.

The burnout on many star occurs because stars, in relation to one another, can be literally millions of times different in brightness. Comet Holmes, while large, is not nearly as bright as many of those stars at any one sensor location, hence is does not burn out the imager and you get a considerably more accurate representation of it. Likewise, the dimmest stars still appear as pinpoints because when they are lensed to a random location, one or two passes over a sensor site aren't enough to result in a bright reading - that only happens at the centroid of the focus, essentially right where the star actually is.

Re:Comet P/17 Holmes visibility, naked eye aspect

[fyngyrz]

Also, re your remark about post processing, I did three and only three things:

1) I used levels to push very faint background stars and sensor noise (which is fairly significant at ISO 3200) down towards or into black;

2) I pushed the color saturation up by about double to bring out the colors of the stars.

3) I clipped the portion of the image containing the comet and a few stars out and posted that fragment only, as opposed to the entire 10 megapixel shot.

None of which affected the capture of the comet in any significant manner. It isn't reflecting any particular color, so the change in saturation had no effect. The comet is quite bright, so pushing down the bottom-most brightness levels only served to trim a few pixels at the darkest edges of the comet. It appears just a trifle larger in the original.

Re:

[dotancohen]

Until /. has at least one non-Sol-system member posting, when anyone refers to THE sun, we know which one it is. I live on Mars, but I still call Sol "The Sun". You Earthlings aren't the only ones orbiting Sol.

Read the FAQ

[benhocking]

Slashdot seems to be very Earth-centric. Do you have any plans to be more galactic in your scope?

Slashdot is Earth-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Earthlings, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is from the Earth. We're certainly not opposed to doing more galactic stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the solar system and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

In other news...

[explosivejared]

Sol now jealous of the precocious, scampy little comet's meteoric rise in popularity and size has become addicted to painkillers and alcohol. Friends close to the star hope to be able to talk the down-and-out celestial body into going to rehab.

Re:In other news...

[john83]

Nah, it'll just resort to using a cane and become bitter and hilariously sarcastic.

Re:

[techpawn]

Leave the Sun Alone!!! It loves its Aunt! It's been going through a divorce! You don't know it so you can't judge it!

I know [msn.com] I'm going to hell

Re:

[EmperorKagato]

I tried to take Sol to rehab but it said "no, no, no."

Re:In other news...

[o'reor]

Sol now jealous of the precocious, scampy little comet's meteoric rise in popularity and size

... and you forgot to mention the "Enl4rg3 y0ur coma" spam mail that Sol has now started to receive...

Re:

[treeves]

Sol doesn't have a coma. It has a corona! Even better!

Re:

[jamstar7]

With or without lemon?

"Meteoric rise"?

[zippthorne]

What failure of comprehension brought about such an ungainly idiom? And why has it become so popular amongst reporters describing everything from celebrity gossip to political intrigue?

Old Sol gets his comeuppance

[wsanders]

I welcome our giant comet overlords. When we are put to work to toil in their ice and ammonia mines, or whatever this comet is made of, we can say to ourselves, 'This sure beats working on the surface of the Sun, we sure put one over on old Sol!"

oblig

[Joe the Lesser]

Man: Every once and a while we dump a big piece of ice in the ocean, solving our problems once and for all.
Girl: But...
Man: ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Re:

[StringBlade]

Because you wouldn't get geek cred for citing your cultural sources. If you're "in" you'll know the source, if you're not, well then you probably wouldn't get it anyway.

Not being flamebait here, just stating the unspoken (am I losing geek cred for pointing this out?).

Diameter? A bit hard to define.

[gardyloo]

Yes, this is pedantic, but by practically any definition (even leaving aside unbounded electromagnetic radiation or mass), Sol is FAR larger than the comet. The very fact that the comet HAS a tail of sorts speaks to the influence of the solar wind.

      I'd guess that the diameter that most people talk about when they're discussing the sun is that determined by the mean-free scatting path length of photons produced within the sun. Once the photons' probability for escaping the sun is higher than that for being scattered back into the interior, that's what we usually call the "diameter", and it accounts for the relatively sharp "edge" to the sun.

      I could release a bunch of helium atoms on Earth's surface, and eventually they'd diffuse enough to be effectively larger than the sun's "diameter" as defined in the articles. It still doesn't mean a whole lot.

Re:

[gardyloo]

mean-free scatting path length

Gaaagh! I want my local star neither improvising vocal jazz nor, um, whatever else that word might refer to. Sorry.

Re:

[dotancohen]

Measuring by mass, the sun is the largest object in the solar system. But the term "large", when used without specifying which measurement is being referred to, usually refers to length. Thus, for solar objects, diameter. By that measurement, Holmes is technically larger than the sun. The sun remains, however, more massive.

Re:Diameter? A bit hard to define.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the term "large", when used without specifying which measurement is being referred to, usually refers to length. Thus, for solar objects, diameter. By that measurement, Holmes is technically larger than the sun.

This depends - as the parent post already pointed out - entirely on how you define the diameter of the object in question. And - again, as the parent post already pointed out - the diameter of the sun is usually defined by that part of the sun which emits most of the photons that reach us from the sun. By most other definitions - and there are lots of them that do make sense - the diameter of the sun is larger. Much larger, in fact.

Incidentally, if you define the diameter of the sun using a measure that more-or-less matches the one used for defining the diameter of a comet's coma - namely, the diameter of the gas cloud emitted by the object in question - you'll get the entire heliosphere. Which is way larger than the coma of 17P/Holmes.

Re:

[osu-neko]

Not really, no. Using the same standards for measurement, the diameter of the sun is over 800,000 miles, whereas the diameter of the comet is only a few miles. OTOH, if you want to include the coma, then the diameter of Holmes is over 800,000 miles, but the diameter of the sun is over ten billion miles (assuming you measure the short distance across the coma/heliopause and not down the length of their respective tails).

Re:

[gstoddart]

I'd guess that the diameter that most people talk about when they're discussing the sun is that determined by the mean-free scatting path length of photons produced within the sun.

Eeeww!!

Photon poo everywhere!! :-P

Cheers

Re:

[davidsyes]

As for...

"The average man thinks of celestial bodies in terms of number of times the sun would envelop/fit inside it. The average man also thinks of amounts of data in terms of libraries of congress. Geez... you are so out of touch."

Supply the elitist with this....

Girth? What size drill/tap bit?

Hell, the Holmsean man thinks of scexlestial bodies in terms of number of times the body would encompass his attached comet inside it. The Holmsean man also thinks of amounts of data in terms of masses of globules of

Cool, in theory

[Otter]

I guess that's interesting on some level, but for all the fuss about this comet I was expecting something more Hale-Boppish. Not just some barely visible, round blur.

Re:

[Abcd1234]

You don't find a fairly run-of-the-mill comet suddenly displaying a massive outburst and a million-fold increase in brightness, along with a truly *massive* coma, fascinating?

TBH, your post belies an attitude which saddens me... the fact that the visual impact of thing is more important than the scientific reality of it. It's part of the reason I avoid showing people nebulae and star clusters in my telescope. While they are scientifically fascinating objects, they simply don't have the real-life impact th

Re:

[Otter]

TBH, your post belies an attitude which saddens me... the fact that the visual impact of thing is more important than the scientific reality of it.

It's not a matter of "more important", just that astrophysics and stargazing are two different things. The pulsar with planets is cool, even if we can't look up and see it. But Holmes has been hyped for its visual impact, which I'd say is .. lacking.

Re:

[Abcd1234]

But Holmes has been hyped for its visual impact, which I'd say is .. lacking.

Well, I think it's more accurate to say that, unlike, say, Hale-Bopp or Hyukatake, the visual impact of Holmes can only be truly appreciated if you understand the science of it. Consider, the coma of this thing is *huge*. Sure, it may look like a fuzzy ball, but it's a fuzzy ball with a truly massive angular extent, generated by an object that's barely resolvable as a point in an average telescope. That's pretty freakin' cool, i

Re:

[fyngyrz]

You have a device that delivers visual stimulation. If the stimulation isn't impressive visually, people aren't going to want to look at it.

For those sighted adults to whom this isn't impressive visually, the situation has revealed people who have a woefully insufficient education, or an inability to comprehend the information conveyed by that education. The only choices remaining are, should we continue to let them go about their business, should we attempt remedial education, or should we put them

That's a big one

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly named after John Holmes...

OBLIGATORY

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!

"Bigger than..."

[RealGrouchy]

So we'll have to revise the list, then?

1. Beatles
2. Jesus
3. Holmes Comet
4. Sun

- RG>

Re:

[statemachine]

If "more popular than" means "bigger than," then sure. Just another misquote that persisted too long.

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~pirli/beatles/jesus.html [upatras.gr]

On March 4, 1966, in an interview printed in the London Evening Standard, John Lennon made the following statement:

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right bu

less dense

[192939495969798999]

the larger it gets, the less dense it is, so it may not appear like much when it finally gets eaten by that other star. However, if it has some flammable gases or something cool, we may see a show after all.

Re:

[PhxBlue]

But how exactly are flammable gases supposed to burn in space? :)

Re:

[192939495969798999]

assume that the star consumes half sol-sized clouds each of hydrogen and oxygen gas from the comet... that would probably produce some kinda effect, right?

Re:

[Cajun Hell]

But how exactly are flammable gases supposed to burn in space?

By colliding with inflammable gasses!

Spur of the moment thought

[mritunjai]

This just crossed my mind -

Why not make a satellite hitch ride on one of these comets to the outer reaches of the solar system. Assuming they go there once every round, even hitching Halley's comet will get us further than Pioneer 1&2 have been in a shorter time, without wasting any precious fuel.

Lesser energy wasted means more energy available to scientific equipments onboard! So they can possibly carry many more equipments and more powerful transmitters.

Or hell, just hitch a ride on one of these for pretty much anywhere in the solar system. No need to wait 7 yrs to reach Saturn. Hitching a ride on one of these could get us there in months. They move *really* fast!

Re:Spur of the moment thought

[edremy]

Umm, how? It's a bit tough to snare things moving at kilometers/second relative to your velocity, even assuming that there is something strong enough to grab on to in a comet. If it's not moving at kps relative, then you don't gain anything anyway- you've expended the energy to fly in formation with it.

You want free energy for spaceflight? There are better ways [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Orange Crush]

Unfortunately, scientists have encountered significant difficulties in convincing comets to enter a convenient orbit around the Earth and accelerating back to the oort cloud by their own means.

Re:

[mdobossy]

A guy I knew was a cyclist. He had a similar thought but with semi-trucks on a freeway.

It didn't work out too well.

Re:

[Bearpaw]

A guy I knew was a cyclist. He had a similar thought but with semi-trucks on a freeway.

It didn't work out too well.

He must not have done it right. I knew someone who made it work really well.

Once.

Re:Spur of the moment thought

[inviolet]

Why not make a satellite hitch ride on one of these comets to the outer reaches of the solar system. Assuming they go there once every round, even hitching Halley's comet will get us further than Pioneer 1&2 have been in a shorter time, without wasting any precious fuel.

To hitch a ride on a passing comet, you can do one of two things:

1. Match velocities, and then land on it. -or-

2. Not match velocities, and then get smashed to bits by it.

Method 2 easily achieves your goal of travelling to the outer reaches of the solar system "without wasting any precious fuel". However, your satellite will no longer be functional, or even identifiable. But other than that, yeah, it's a great idea. :)

(Tell me Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you enjoy the theatre?)

Re:

[jamstar7]

You still have to match speeds with it, not an easy thing with current technology. Have you done the math on a probe just parked in front of a comet for what the impact energy will be like? Let me give you a hint, it's 1/2mv(squared). Get a big enough probe for the comet to smack into, and you can split it in half. Course, you won't be able to use the probe for much anymore...

John Holmes Comet Grows Bigger

[Fear the Clam]

The Holmes comet has a huge coma

And it's headed straight for your black hole, bay-bee.

Jupiter's Magnetosphere Still the Largest

[GrayCalx]

noting that there is now an object in our solar system bigger than Sol.

I'm pretty sure Jupiter's magnetosphere is still the largest object in the solar system.

Diameters (approx.)
Sun : 864,900 miles
Holmes : 869,900 miles
Jupiter's Magnetosphere : 16,000,000 miles

Wiki [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Tarlus]

I'm pretty sure Jupiter's magnetosphere is still the largest object in the solar system.

I wouldn't really call that an object, per se. Of course, I wouldn't really call a coma an object either, though it is at least a cloud-like mass of particles which makes it more of an object than a magnetic field.

But, I'm no scientist, so I digress. I had no clue that Jupiter had that much magnetic influence. How large is the sun's magnetosphere?

Re:

[lahvak]

Maybe that's a bad question, but would would be the size of Sun's magnetosphere?

Re:

[GrayCalx]

Yeah interesting question. I would say that the sun's magnetosphere would BE the solar system. If that makes sense... but what do I know I've taken zero astronomy classes, I just go by what Discovery tells me, ;)

Re:

[Tarlus]

A fart isn't an object either but it can be perceived by the sense of hearing, smelling, feeling, and if you're unlucky, tasting.

Re:

[MightyYar]

tasting.

I just got an idea for a website.

Re:

[GrayCalx]

Puny solar system! ;-)

Heh, I love those videos. I haven't seen that one before, thanks for the link.

There's precedent for this

[sacrilicious]

With a name like Holmes, what did we all expect [wikipedia.org]?

Got a photo of it last night

[yeremein]

I took a picture of the comet just yesterday. Posted here [flickr.com].

In fact, I have several photos [flickr.com] of the comet taken over the past few weeks. They're not all cropped the same, but it's still quite apparent how much the comet is expanding. One of these days I plan to put together a composite photo, fixing the stars in place, and showing not only the expansion of the comet but also its motion relative to the stars.

Re:

[Dunbal]

omygodit'sheadedstraightforus!

Re:

[symes]

Those are some nice photos!

Re:

[corsec67]

Those pictures are very cool.
I see you used a 600mm telescope. I will try to take some pictures with my 500mm mirror lens. Unfortunatly I don't have a motor mount, so I don't know what I will get.

Re:

[Kupek]

Thanks. Those pictures are much more informative than the one in the article.

Re:

[Cally]

Is it naked eye? And if so, roughly whereabouts is it? casual stargazers want to know!

Re:

[yeremein]

It is certainly visible to the naked eye, and looks distinctly not-star-like. It's spectacular in binoculars.

Right now it's in Perseus, quite close to the brightest star. It's in the northeast as dusk falls, below Cassiopeia.

new career option?

[drfireman]

I was awesome at diameters in grade school, but no one ever told me there was a career path for "diameter scientists." This is easily the most exciting thing about this story, which if anything just tells us that it's a slow news day in the solar system.

Why would it ever stop expanding?

[Tango42]

It's nonsense to talk about how big it's going to get. It's expanding in space - it's going to keep expanding forever (the solar wind might stop it expanding symmetrically, though). It will just get thinner and thinner. The interesting thing is that it's still easily visible, but it will start to dim eventually as it gets too thin to reflect much light. The question is how big it will get while still reflecting enough light for it to be visible to the naked eye (in fact, I think only the middle can be seen without a telescope already), and that should be fairly easy to calculate.

Re:Get out your Nikes and brew up a batch of Kool

[winkydink]

Hey, I'll wear the Nike's but there's no way I'm cutting my nuts off.

Re:

[WormholeFiend]

but you WILL drink the Kool-Aid, right?

Re:Get out your Nikes and brew up a batch of Kool

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you've got it all wrong. All you religious fruitcakes^wfanatics^wadherrants, this a sign from God. You should kill yourselves immediate to return to His grace.

Re:Get out your Nikes and brew up a batch of Kool

[cromar]

Nikes??

Re:

[db32]

What do you mean 'tainted'? That was the best freaking part! How many people would not have known anything about the comet if it wasn't for that little bit of hilarity.

Re:

[ackthpt]

I'm going back to freshman level science classes here but since most comets never come near the sun, but stay way out in never-never land, we have nothing to be afraid of her, right? Also, when comets DO come in for a pass at the sun (which is in theory possible for this guy) they condense and their centres form masses of ice and other solids. So this thing would shrink significantly if it ever did come in for a visit. Very cool piece of trivia though. I'm going to try using it this weekend

Shrink? Well, loose mass it would. The tail is the matter leaving the body of the comet. It is possible, while at aphelion the comet has sufficient gravity to attract more matter in the Oort cloud. But it is most likely comets have a limited life. So many trips around and they have evaporated.

The cool thing about these comets is they may leave a legacy. A legacy of meteor showers. (c=

Re:

[computational super]

Well, loose mass it would.

I thought dead you were, Master Yoda.

Re:

[Rei]

Unfortunately, Holmes doesn't even make it inside the orbit of Mars.

Still amazing, though. I think it's incredible that after all this time, I can still see it in-city with the naked eye, a faint blur like someone took a pencil eraser to a star, growing ever-closer to Mirfak. And it's so well situated for evening viewing these days, too.

Re:

[davidsyes]

Veronica (Mars) has an icy halo? Poor Holmes. Can't wag its tail.

Re:

[idlemind]

You are so getting laid this weekend!

Mod parent up

[PhxBlue]

Sitnalta's point is especially true when you consider how close to nothing a comet's coma really is. The closest thing to "nothing" we can manage on Earth still has a lot more stuff in it than the coma of a comet.

Re:

[Gilmoure]

The closest thing to "nothing" we can manage on Earth...

A user's comprehension?

Re:

[lexarius]

Exactly. The sun's atmosphere also extends well past the known solar system, and Wikipedia tells me that the heliospheric current sheet [wikipedia.org] is the largest structure in the solar system.

Re:Definition trouble.

[Mundocani]

I know you guys are right and all, but this is more of a fun factoid than some sort of scientific claim. Yeah, the sun is bigger, and has magnetic fields and winds and has tons more mass and everything, but as an amateur astronomer (very amateur), I still find it fascinating just how large the thing has become since exploding only a few weeks ago. That it's larger than the "visible" sun is, to me, just wild -- even if it is nothing but a huge bubble with very little substance.

Re:

[porkThreeWays]

pfft, my pet nibbler's turd weigh as much as that.

Re:

[gardyloo]

The comet is not larger than our sun. It is wider in diameter, not in radius.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:

[Bob-taro]

Sure that's an impressive thing but I'd rather not hear about it unless it's radius grows larger than the sun. In the meantime, marvel over a comet with a long tail of crap

They are saying the comet's coma [wikipedia.org] is bigger than the sun, not it's nucleus or it's "long tail of crap".