2/22/03 4:53:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
fyi...

imo, no one makin' alot of sense right now...

o)<

mike
-----------------
Forwarded Message:

Subj: Re: 'comet' neat v1  Date: 2/21/03 11:51:46 PM Pacific Standard Time From: fintandunne1 To: Alchemike Sent from the Internet

----- Original Message -----

From: Alchemike

To: guluinfo

Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:46 PM

Subject: 'comet' neat v1

hi guys...

first, thanks for the work you're doing on this comet story...very interesting stuff...

we are also investigating and i am trying to verify the approximate size of this object...

at this link... http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/future/neat_flyby.htm
there is a statement that says...
"SUN DIAMETER EQUALS 870,000 MILES
NEAT DIAMETER EQUALS 348,000 MILES
LENGTH NEAT TAIL EQUALS 5,220,000 MILES
JUPITER DIAMETER EQUALS 88,782 MILES
TO SAY THIS BABY IS BIG IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN
UNDERSTATEMENT AS IS ITS TOTAL INVISIBILITY."

i am interested in the source of the information on the diameter of neat...if it is indeed that large, it is no comet my friends...

however, most of the preliminary information seems to indicate that it is a small nucleus...for example...
http://cometography.com/lcomets/2002v1.html
snip...Using observations obtained by the German comet section up to December 26, Andreas Kammerer analyzed the brightness trend of this comet and has stated that the rapid increase in brightness "is typical of a small nucleus."

and this...

snip...The publication of a new orbit on January 15, indicates the comet is moving in a long-period orbit with a period of about 37 thousand years. This indicates this small comet has survived passages through perihelion in the past, and makes a breakup seem a little less likely.

anyway, the size of this object is of critical importance...it must be determined at least reasonably accurately...and we need to specify if it is the nucleus size or the coma size or whatever...

please let me know if you have any thoughts or further information...and thanks again for the work...

o)<

mike

you are always free to post any of my comments under the name 'alchemike'...



ps...suncruiser currently on c2...
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20030221_1954_c2.gif

Date: 2/22/03 9:51:59 PM Pacific Standard Time

KENT

I SMELL A BIG RAT.

THE GULU FUTURE POST FEATURED SEVERAL QUOTES AND NAMED THE SOURCE. IT THEN QUOTED ME RE THE SIZE BUT DID NOT NAME ME. ALCHEMIKE SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW SOURCE OF ESTIMATE.

THIS I DID ON THE FORUM UNDER THREAD NEAT SIZE.

I RAISED THE QUESTION

NOBODY REPLIED.

SO I REVIEWED THE NASA COMET ANIMATION AND THEN MEASURED THE IMAGES ON C3 18TH 0554, THE LAST IMAGE AT THAT TIME.

I POSTED MY FINDINGS AND EXPLANATION.

I POINTED OUT THIS COMA SIZE, NO WAY TO KNOW CORE SIZE.

I SUBSEQUENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE MINIMUM, REPEAT MINIMUM MASS COULD BE CALCULATED AS NEAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM MOMENTUM TO SAFETLY TURN ROUND THE SUN. SPEED WAS KNOIW AS WAS PASSING DISTANCE HENCE MINIMUM MASS CAN BE CALCULATED.

REFERRING TO ANY CORE OR SOLID CENTRE, WE KEEP BEING QUOTED TWO EARTH SIZES, OH MCCCANNEY SAYS IT IS MERCURY SIZE. ON WHAT BASIS ARE THESE ASSUMPTIONS MADE.

CALCULATING MINIMUM MAS WE CAN GUESS AT DENSITY. SAY IT HAS A DENSITY OF WATER WHICH IS 1.0 AND MASS CALCULATION SHOWS ONE BILLION TONNES. THEN WE COULD ESTIMATE SIZE AT SAY 10,000 MILES DIAMETER. BUT IF DENSITY IS SAY 13.0 HARD ROCK THEN ITS DIAMETER WOULD BE SAY ONLY 1,000 MILES.

IT IS ALL CONJECTURE.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS ITS APPARENT SIZE, CLOSENESS TO SUN, OBVIOUS ELECTRICAL RATHER THAN GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS AND THE PRETTY OBVIOUS COVER UP.

RICHARD