How is a Comet Defined?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Comet
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definition of comets, particularly in relation to Pluto and the historical context of astronomical terminology. Participants explore the characteristics that define comets and how these definitions have evolved over time, touching on both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that comets are traditionally defined by the presence of tails, which form when they approach the Sun, while others challenge this notion, stating that comets can exist without tails far from the Sun.
  • One participant highlights the historical context of the term "comet," suggesting that its etymology implies a connection to the appearance of comets, which may not align with modern definitions.
  • Another participant questions the relevance of the tail as a distinguishing feature, suggesting that the definition of comets should consider their behavior and characteristics beyond just their appearance when near the Sun.
  • There is a call for a modern authoritative definition of comets, indicating that the discussion is not settled on what constitutes a comet in contemporary astronomy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the defining characteristics of comets, with no consensus reached on whether tails are essential to the definition or if other factors should be considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions of astronomical terms can evolve over time, and the historical context of terminology may influence current interpretations. There is also an acknowledgment of the ambiguity in distinguishing between comets, asteroids, and other celestial bodies.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
24,482
Reaction score
8,746
This seems a rather ignorant thing to say:

http://www.physorg.com/news91889915.html

They're talking about originally defining Pluto as a planet, but see bold:

"...At the time, there was a debate about what to call this thing. There weren't that many options. Can you call it an asteroid? People knew about asteroids at this point, but the asteroids were all in this little band between Mars and Jupiter. A comet? Comets are known to have orbits that loop way out and then come back in, so it kind of looks like a comet, but comets are defined by the fact that they have tails -- the gas expanding out from it. So it clearly didn't fit the bill of comet. So by default, "planet" was really the only thing it could be..."
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
DaveC426913 said:
This seems a rather ignorant thing to say: [.."..]comets are defined by the fact that they have tails[.."]

Could you explain why you think that is ignorant?

The word "comet" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=comet&searchmode=none" means "long haired star"; Pluto has much more in common with the wanderers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because comets are NOT defined by the fact that they have tails. Comets live quite happily without tails a billion miles or more from the Sun. The origin of the name is antiquated now that we're studying them in the Oort cloud.
 
I still think "ignorant" is far too harsh.

Whilst we may study particular objects in the Oort cloud, I don't believe it's common modern usage to call those objects "comets" unless we also think they periodically exhibited tails of some extent (whilst passing close to the sun).

As for the paragraph on Pluto, it clearly refers to language "at the time" before these terms had developed their modern technical meaning. The literal meaning of a word is extremely relevant to "a debate about what to call this thing". I didn't interpret it as an issue of whether the things now called comets are composed the same as the composition of the thing Pluto.

Do you have some "authoritive" modern (technical) definition for comet? To me, the tail seems like the natural distinguishing characteristic, not just historically but also in order to (mostly) avoid the same slippery slope that pains us in distinguishing little mountainous planets from big round asteroids.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

High School 3I/ATLAS, Interstellar Comet
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
High School Is this a coincidence?... (distances between planets)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad How Big of an Object Orbiting Closer to the Sun Than Earth Could Be Overlooked?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad New Developments In The Search For Planet X
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School Is the barycentre of the Pluto - Charon system also the L1 point?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School What would the planets look like in real life?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad What's Next for Astrogeology and Planetary Sciences?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Valles Marineras Origin and Origin of Asteroid Belt Linked?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
High School Miscellaneous Trivia: Planets and Moons
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Are asteroid collisions as dangerous as they seem?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K