QUESTIONS: Comet 209P/LINEAR

many different sources | Feb 27, 2014 | Yosemitest

[Yosemitest]

John Bochanski wrote an article tilted
The Next New Meteor Shower,
Astronomers confirm that debris from Comet 209P/LINEAR should create a sky show on May 24, 2014
on November 12, 2013 that is one of the most detailed I've read so far.
Here are some excerpts from it.

"Most meteor showers ... occur when Earth plows into the debris trail left behind by a comet.
The comet throws this debris off as it’s heated by the Sun, but while all comets heat up as they enter the inner solar system, many do not have orbits that intersect with Earth’s.

... The tried-and-true list of showers might change soon, though.
As we noted in 2012, the comet 209P/LINEAR, which passed by the Sun in 2009, may produce a big meteor shower on May 24, 2014.

... Detailed calculations of its orbit indicated that in May 2014 the comet’s debris trails would pass extremely close to Earth
(about 0.0002 Earth-Sun distances, or within spitting distance of our planet’s outermost atmosphere).
These thousands of particles could burn up in Earth’s atmosphere as meteors when our planet plows through the debris field.

... Ye and Wiegert report in an upcoming Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the team’s calculations suggest that the comet has been producing relatively large particles (on the order of 1 mm), meaning that the upcoming meteor shower may be chock-full of bright meteors.

... With the low dust production, as well as the team’s lower estimate of how many debris streams from the comet's previous passes are hanging around in this region of space,
it’s highly unlikely that we’re in for a “meteor storm” (1,000 per hour) —
although the team couldn’t quite rule it out.

... It’ll be worth going out to look in May.
The meteor shower is set to peak around 7h Universal Time on May 24, 2014, with the radiant point (where the meteors appear to come from) in the constellation Camelopardalis.
That’ll be a fist-width or two above the horizon for those around latitude 40° N;
the shower should be easily visible from much of the Northern Hemisphere.

As Comet 209P/LINEAR enters the inner solar system again, it will brighten but still be relatively faint with an apparent magnitude of 11 around the time of the shower.
Nonetheless, skywatchers will have their telescopes trained on this comet, as new data on its position and brightness will be crucial for updating models of its behavior. ... "


Kelly Beatty wrote an article titled Meteor Storm Brewing for 2014 ? on October 9, 2012 and he stated:

" ... It follows a looping but relatively tight path that carries it just inside Earth's orbit every 5.04 years.
According to dynamicist Syuichi Nakano, Comet 209P/LINEAR's next perihelion occurs on May 6, 2014, at a point 0.969 astronomical unit from the Sun and with Earth not far away.

Just 18 days later, we should cross through dozens of particle streams shed during past orbits.
The predictions are still rough, but three different models suggest the sky show could be spectacular.
"All the trails ejected between 1803 and 1924 cross Earth's path in May 2014," notes Jérémie Vaubaillon (IMCEE, France).
"As a consequence, this shower might as well be a storm,"

... The best part of all this prognostication, at least from a U.S. perspective, is that the meteor display should peak between 7:00 and 8:00 Universal Time on May 24th — it'll be dark across virtually all of North America.
... And the Moon will be a narrow waning sliver just a few days from new. "

Mikhail Maslov wrote

" ...The Earth is expected to encounter a great number of the comet 209P trails in 2014.
The main source of activity should become 1898-1919 trails,
however some meteors could be produced by the earlier trails of the comet, down to 1763 trail, which is the oldest computed trail, and even earlier.
The computed time of maximum activity is May 24, 2014, at 7:21 UT,
theoretical radiant is RA=122.8�, Dec=+79.0�.
It is difficult to estimate expected intensity of the outburst due to the lack of past observed cases of activity from the given comet meteor shower,
as well as due to very small size of the comet itself and unknown level of its past activity.
However, considering high computed density and high number of encountered trails, we can very approximately estimate ZHRex as 100 meteors.
Its a very cautious estimation, and it is very possible that real activity will turn to be much higher.
Storm levels are also far from being excluded.


Also take a look at the 3D view of the 1903 meteoroid trail in the Solar system of comet 209P/LINEAR (2004 CB) :



And the Equivalent 2D view (XY).








So my first question is:

What does this Noeds-Earth2014.jpg , or the 3D model above, actually tell us?




I assume this is a 3-dimensional chart, and we can't tell the 2 dimensional danger it represents to us.

Are there any Radar Images of Comet 209P/Linear or Hubble photos of it showing its core?

[Yosemitest]

They were able to model this.

Discovery Channel - Miracle Planet - Large Asteroid Impact Simulation ( 9:59 )

Also there's the Downloadable images and animations of potential lunar-forming impacts (from Canup 2004, Icarus)
They CAN model those large pieces, but they just don't want to.

The formation of the Moon ( o:42 )
The formation of the Moon, Robin M. Canup (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~robin/)
http://www.fortunadrago.it/?p=2689.

[Errant]

They CAN model those large pieces, but they just don't want to.

I certainly agree that they don't seem to be willing to share everything they know with us for some reason.

[Yosemitest]

Or this:

COMET Update, Dark Giants Captured in New Flare ( 6:54 )
Published on Mar 2, 2014 10:00pm

[messierhunter]

Watch and learn. He is lying to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kcuxcn9BYE
Yes, I am very intolerant of people who spread false information in an effort to scare people. But guess what? At least I present the truth.

[messierhunter]

Wow, you’re both wrong. Yes, “m” means meters. What do I know though, I’m only a professional scientist...

[Yosemitest]

"1*10^-1.0 m, or 100 cm.
The peak particle size on that chart is about 1 cm or less.",

Wouldn't that be 1 decimeter ?

deci- (d-) 10-1
1 tenth

centi- (c-) 10-2
1 hundredth

And 1 time 10 would be 10 decimeters, which is one meter on the negative side.

[messierhunter]

Sorry, yes, 10 cm, aka 1 decimeter.

[messierhunter]

Did you watch my video or not?

[Yosemitest]

What video?
It's been a busy day, and tonight, I'm the one with fatigue problems.

[messierhunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kcuxcn9BYE

[Yosemitest]

Have you looked at the "Figure 4" Chart on page 6 of the Quanshi Ye and Paul A. Wiegert .pdf ?
According to what you're suggesting,

that chart runs from 1 decimeter radius or 2 decimeters in diameter, down to 1/100 millimeter in radius or 2/100 millimeters in diameter.

1 decimeter equals 3.93700787 inches, so that chart says:

the particles are from 7.87401574 inches, down to 29 micrometers or microns which is 7.874015748031496 of 10,000ths an inch.
MEAN size (average size) of particles are a radius of -3.29871 millimeters or 1.2987047244 inches, which is a diameter of 2.5974094488 inches.
Mode size particles
(there's just as many smaller particles as there are larger particles from this size)
are a radius of 29.3205 millimeters, which is 1.1543503937 inches or a diameter of 2.3087007874 inches.

And IF just ONE particle is larger than 4 inches,

THEN their entire model is invalidated.

[Yosemitest]

"And IF just ONE particle is larger than 4 inches,THEN their entire model is invalidated."

Correction:

And IF just ONE particle is larger than 8 inches,
THEN their entire model is invalidated.

[messierhunter]

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."
-George Box

You're trying desperately to appeal to doom, but it's sad and shocking to me that you haven't learned from your previous failures with regard to ISON. Look at what that model shows with regards to particle size as you approach the upper limit. It drops off precipitously. Now maybe that's completely wrong and we're going to be hit with thousands or millions of rocks the size of a house, but if so said rocks should be detectable and we will know the model is wrong. Now if the model turns out to be right and there was nothing to worry about, will you admit you were wrong and learn from your errors in always assuming that a comet means doom? That is the pattern I see with you, and you're making this forum look ridiculous. Sadly, I expect you will not learn from this experience either, just as you did not learn from ISON.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
- Carl Sagan

[Errant]

Wow, you’re both wrong. Yes, “m” means meters. What do I know though, I’m only a professional scientist...

I had a feeling if we played dumb long enough that you'd succumb to vanity and tell us! :D

Big 'M' means Mega
Little 'm' means Milli, but it can also mean Meter
Little backwards 'µ' means micro

What could be confusing about that???

[Errant]

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." -George Box

I've been trying to tell Yosemitest, that damn model was WRONG!

Thanks! ;)

[Errant]

You're trying desperately to appeal to doom, but it's sad and shocking to me that you haven't learned from your previous failures with regard to ISON...

First, thanks for the link to the video. Looks like Jessie (BPEarthwatch) may gotten the wrong comet in his crosshairs alright. Hopefully someone will let him know and he will learn from it. He seems like an honest person just looking for the truth and doesn't trust the government, which is becoming more and more common. However, mistakes are hard for some to admit to even though we all make them.

As for your statement above: "You're trying desperately to appeal to doom"; this due mainly because bible believers see the "signs of the seasons" and remembering the prophecies of things falling from the heavens during these days, are on alert and watching for such (i.e., BPEarthWatch).

Since you're a "professional scientist", as you say, are you willing to assure us that if an imminent treat to earth from say a comet or asteroid (etc.) was spotted, it would be reported to earth's inhabitants?

[Yosemitest]

"You're trying desperately to appeal to doom, ..."

NO, and you'll NEVER understand that ~ or even ADMIT that you don't understand that.

"Now maybe that's completely wrong
and we're going to be hit with thousands or millions of rocks the size of a house,
but if so
said rocks should be detectable"

Oh really?
And just HOW will you detect them?

I've a very close friend that spent years working out at at Kwajalein Space Communications And Control Facility, who maintained their radar and long distance communications equipment.
He left there in the mid to late 80s, and he told me that, of his day, the equipment could NOT get a return on an object 500 feet in diameter
(depending upon its makeup, whether metal, an asteroid, or comet debris) until it was within 50,000 miles of Earth.
Now I know that technology has only gotten better since the 80s,
but at any Comet's debris' speed, that's only about one hour or two hours at best, early notification that we're in danger of a "near miss" or "an impact".
That's not enough notification to really do anything about it
unless we have people standing and waiting at the ready to react to an immediate notification.

The problem with most so-called "professional scientist" is that ~ they just don't believe in God or His Bible.
Then when something that God said would happen, does happen, they stand there with there mouth wide open in astonishment saying nothing!
They're just idiots, full of worthless vanity, and refuse to serve the people.

[Yosemitest]

I commend you on your video, because of your detailed links and your logical approach to put out honest information.

Comet 209P/LINEAR ( 23:30 )
Uploaded on Mar 2, 2014
STEREO image astrometric solution:
http://nova.astrometry.net/user_image…
Astrometrically solved 209P/LINEAR image:
http://nova.astrometry.net/user_image…
209P/LINEAR Orbital solutions and ephemeris using amateur data:
http://dropcanvas.com/00pj5

But I do have a few points to discuss with you about it.
First, instead of being "Unlisted", you should do some minor changes to make it "List-able", and add links to your programs that show the orbital models you display.

I want to know more about the Orbit Reconstruction, Simulation and Analysis software and how to use it.
How does it compare to Stellarium and to SkySafari Pro ?
Why did you choose it over the others ?

Pasquale Tricarico, Ph.D., Senior Scientist of the Planetary Science Institute is someone I 'd like to know more about.

I get the impression you're him.

The overall impression I got from your video is that you're stating

"No threat, no danger from Comet 209P/Linear.
Just a new "meteor shower" to view, that's all."

But, at 16 minutes and 54 seconds into of your 23:30 unlisted video, your "OpenGL viewer: 209P Back to 1803", clearly shows

M01D: 0.256LD

Time: 1810 Dec 4 00:00:00 TDT
Central Object: Sun
Observer Position: Free

So Comet 209P/Linear's orbital distance from Earth's orbital plane is 0.256LD Lunar Distance, from it's 1810 Dec 4 orbit.
A lunar distance (LD) is 384,400 km (238,900 miles) and 0.256LD LD is only 61,158.5 miles.

Now to you question "WHERE the "2.1 Million Miles Wide" came from".
BPEarthWatch addressed it Feb 16, 2014 at from 3:09 to 4:33 of the 5:22 video where he states:

" The Earth is moving at 67,000 miles per hour.
It will take 30 hours to pass thru Comet Linear's Debris Field.
The Earth travels 1.6 million miles per day.
This meals the Debris Field is 2 Million Miles Wide.
It's actually 2 Million 10 Thousand Milers Wide, to get it right down and accurate.
That's a wide debris field, guys.
... Time inside the thickest part of the debris field will be 8-12 hours. "

I think it came from Figure 2 on page 5 of Quanshi Ye and Paul A. Wiegert .pdf and is a compilation of ALL 209P/Linear's Orbital debris trails.

My guess on his statement about "an arc" it that he's talking about when Comet 209P/Linear starts its downward turn on the outbound leg of its orbit.

Where you address "Comet Lovejoy vs Comet 209P/Linear" and the mistaken identity, you convinced me, with your presentation and the detailed links you presented.

Where you present the width of Come 209P/Linear as a diameter of only 4,000 miles, you again convinced me.
BUT, you appear to be talking about just ONE orbit's width, and NOT ALL the accumulated orbital debris fields left behind from Comet 209P/Linear, that we're going to enter May 24, 2014.

That's where, I think, he gets the "2.1 million miles wide" figure.

You addressed Comet IRAS–Araki–Alcock (formal designation C/1983 H1, formerly 1983 VII) making a closer approach to Earth, almost twice as close as 209p, was okay.
But there are several different estimates of 209P's closeness with Earth's orbit, however, your XORSA model is the most believable I've seen so far.
I enjoyed reading:

"about 0.0312 AU (4,670,000 km; 2,900,000 mi) of any comet in 200 years; only Lexell's Comet, in 1770, and 55P/Tempel-Tuttle, in 1366, are thought to have come closer."

That was an interesting read.
But your

"Comet 209P/Linear's orbital distance from Earth's orbital plane is 0.256LD Lunar Distance, from it's 1810 Dec 4 orbit."

is only 61,158.5 miles and that's closer.

Your presentation of 209P interacting with Jupiter's orbit around Jan 2010, bringing it closer to Earth, was informing.

Overall, I have more respect for you, but your questioning of BPEarthWatch's motives seems strange.
I believe he's sincere, but I didn't know people made money from YouTube.com,

and your http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/(name) is one I want to remember.

Overall, you did a good job with your presentation.
Just don't fault people for trying to make money in their retirement years.

Some truly are sincere, even if they;re mislead, and are NOT trying to "Scare the masses"
so much as they're trying to serve the people as a "Watchman on the wall".

[Yosemitest]

One other thing.
Tell me more about "Starry Night Pro" .

Starry Night Pro

[messierhunter]

“First, instead of being “Unlisted”, you should do some minor changes to make it “List-able”, and add links to your programs that show the orbital models you display.”

No thanks. I gave it to some friends of mine to put on their channels publicly, which they did. As I expected, one of them is currently receiving threats from BPearthwatch claiming that he will file a DMCA takedown notice if they do not remove it since “I did not have authorization to use his video.” I don’t need authorization. Criticism is fair use in copyright law. Anyway, the friend who is being threatened has much more experience handling this and a lawyer who will gladly and quickly respond in kind if it comes to that. I’ll keep in mind the idea of adding links to the programs I use in the future.

“I want to know more about the Orbit Reconstruction, Simulation and Analysis software and how to use it.
How does it compare to Stellarium and to SkySafari Pro ?
Why did you choose it over the others ?”
ORSA is a solar system numerical integrator. It can integrate the motions of objects over time, taking into account their gravity. Stellarium, SkySafari Pro, and similar programs all use 2-body methods for comets and asteroids. Therefore they only give accurate results for the positions of those objects at timepoints close to the epoch of the orbital elements used. To see the long term evolution of 209P’s orbit, one must use numerical integratioin, which is what I did with ORSA. Different tools for different jobs. Starry Night Pro is like Stellarium and SkySafari Pro, so it’s useful for identifying comets in current images using current orbital elements, but it cannot accurately show where 209P was 100 or 200 years ago using current orbital elements.

“I get the impression you’re him.”

I value my anonymity. I have a PhD in a scientific field, not astronomy. I am an amateur astronomer, I do this because I enjoy it, not because I’m paid to do it, but I am involved in professional science. Professional science is my “day job” (actually it’s frequently a night job because of what I do) which pays for my “astronomy habit.” That is all you need to know.

“But, at 16 minutes and 54 seconds into of your 23:30 unlisted video, your “OpenGL viewer: 209P Back to 1803”, clearly shows

M01D: 0.256LD

Time: 1810 Dec 4 00:00:00 TDT
Central Object: Sun
Observer Position: Free

So Comet 209P/Linear’s orbital distance from Earth’s orbital plane is 0.256LD Lunar Distance, from it’s 1810 Dec 4 orbit.
A lunar distance (LD) is 384,400 km (238,900 miles) and 0.256LD LD is only 61,158.5 miles.”

Which as I discuss in the video, is why we may be encountering meteors from the comet’s perihelion approaches during that era this year. Meteoroids laid down by the comet 100~200 years ago are the source, not recent activity. If the comet was dormant at that time though we won’t see anything at all. Either way the meteor shower or lack thereof will tell us about the history of this comet.

“I think it came from Figure 2 on page 5 of Quanshi Ye and Paul A. Wiegert .pdf and is a compilation of ALL 209P/Linear’s Orbital debris trails.”

Yes, I recently found that he was using that figure. He calls it a radar image. Furthermore, as I showed in my video, he directly labels what he thinks is 209P and creates a diagram claiming it’s 2.1 million miles wide. He is essentially claiming that Figure 2 AND the STEREO image of 209P show the same thing, that the comet IS a “debris field 2.1 million miles wide.” The truth is it isn’t a radar image at all, it’s the result of a simulation, numerical integration similar to what I did, to figure out when we will encounter any previous meteoroid streams and how many meteors we might get. It is not the same thing as the comet itself, but that is what BP is claiming (whether stated explicitly or not, that IS what he shows). It’s also not a radar image, he just made that up on his own (ie, lied). Figure 2 shows that at maximum the density of material is about 1 particle per 10 km squared in the cross-section of the ecliptic presented in that figure. The true particle density could be much less though, as they state in the paper.

“However, given the current relatively weak dust production of
the comet, rates could be much lower. Of course, absent in-
formation on the activity of the parent body during the per-
ihelion passages during which the arriving meteoroids were
produced we cannot say much about expected rates, nev-
ertheless we conclude that a meteor storm is unlikely.”

“I enjoyed reading:

“about 0.0312 AU (4,670,000 km; 2,900,000 mi) of any comet in 200 years; only Lexell’s Comet, in 1770, and 55P/Tempel-Tuttle, in 1366, are thought to have come closer.”

That was an interesting read.
But your

“Comet 209P/Linear’s orbital distance from Earth’s orbital plane is 0.256LD Lunar Distance, from it’s 1810 Dec 4 orbit.”

is only 61,158.5 miles and that’s closer.”

You’re confusing the MOID distance and close approach distance. They’re not the same. The comets mentioned did come closer than 209P did, even back then. 209P’s MOID distance was low, but that is not the same as close approach distance, that is only the distance from our orbit, not from our planet.