Talk:Great Comet of 1680

Comments

Is this currently the farthest known object in the solar system? The Voyager 1 page says it's "more distant from the Sun than any known natural solar system object" (at 105AU), but surely this comet is farther out by now, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.7.6 (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC) OK, I ran the numbers. Assuming the elements are correct, this comet is currently at 250.574AU from the sun's center, certainly more distant than Voyager 1 or Eris and probably any other known long-period comet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.7.6 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

252.476 251.796 according to NASA for 5 May. (I imagine differences are due to the short observation arc in 1680) I have added its current distance, using two of NASA's online tools:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1680+V1&orb=1

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=sb&sstr=C/1680%20V1

The first gives the current orbit and approximate distance (with picture), the second gives a more accurate ephemeris (but no picture). I'll look at some other comets now.-84user (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)fixed distance -84user (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding distances of long period comets using NASA's HORIZONS site, and so far the furthest known is Tycho Brahe's C/1577 V1 (Great Comet of 1577) which is 317 AU from the Sun as of now. -84user (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Halley's supposed discovery of this comet

In a recent edit it was claimed that Edmund Halley discovered this comet a day before Kirch did. This claim was based on a faulty reading of Newton's Principia. Checking Motte's translation (1729, vol. 2, pp. 350-351) it is clear that Halley was merely citing Kirch's observations, reduced to the meridian of London, and converted to the astronomical day (which started at noon). In this way Kirch's date and hour of observation (shortly before sunrise on 14 November Gregorian) became shortly after the 17th hour of the 13th day, which in the Julian calendar was the 3rd. AstroLynx (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous appearances

Not being competent in astronomy, nevertheless I notice in Notes and Queries, 2nd series, 18 October 1856, p. 316, contributed by C. Mansfield Ingleby, Birmingham, that this comet's previous appearances were calculated by J. Russell Hind, The Comets 1852, based on Encke's calculations; this would have been proved not to have been the same comet noted in 1106, 531 and 43 BC. The modern assessment of the comet's previous appearances would add to the interest of the article. Godfrey Kirch at Coburg 14 November 1680 is credited by Mr Ingleby with the first sighting. --Wetman (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

JPL Horizons shows C/1680 V1 having an epoch 1600 barycentric orbital period of about 10,000 years and an epoch 2000 barycentric period of about 10,400 years. -- Kheider (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Comet of 1680. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906174837/http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET to http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/data/ELEMENTS.COMET

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Article does not explain how/if it is found in modern times

Judging by some of the references in the article, modern astronomers have located this comet. At the very least, the article should explain when this association was made, and a little on how. Or if it the estimations are simply extrapolated from the 1860/1681 data, the article should say that. But as it stands, there is a very confusing jump between 1680 and modern computations. Adpete (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

With a roughly 10000 year orbital period this comet has not been seen since 1681. -- Kheider (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, until I saw the precision of some of the numbers in the article and in the references. I think that's what confused me. Adpete (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The orbit will, ultimately, be extrapolated from the positions observed in 1680, rather than based on direct observation.Svejk74 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Exposisión [sic] astronómica de el cometa

Why the sic? I just added an image of the front page of the book, and it says "Exposicion astronomica de el cometa". Also, this article can be expanded quite a lot, from what's given in the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)