Talk:Caesar's Comet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caesar's Comet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An appropriate image needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. Once this has been done, please remove the `\|needs-image=yes` parameter from this template.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rome

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Did it exist?[edit]

Added an alternative viewpoint to Ramsey and Licht, The comet's existence is by no means a foregone conclusion. I plan on overhauling this article at a later date. Astrocyst (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are Chinese records of such an object at that time, then you can rest assured that it existed. The Chinese astronomical records from antiquity are considered very reliable. The pro-Octavius Romans may have (and probably did) embellished it for propaganda purposes, but it did exist. 2606:A000:89C6:9300:1995:394C:6E93:E2B6 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute or apparent magnitude?[edit]

The absolute magnitude of an object is the brightness of that object if it were at a distance of 10 parsec. The absolute magnitude of the Sun is about 4.75. Thus, a comet with an absolute magnitude of -4.0 would be $10^{(4.75--4.0)/2.5}\approx 3000$ times brighter than the Sun. I think it more likely that the apparent magnitude, as seen from Earth, was -4.0 (more than a billion times dimmer than the Sun and about as bright as Venus). AstroFloyd (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, admittedly over three and a half years late. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Absolute magnitude#Cometary magnitudes of -4.0 could be expected for the truly greatest comets of all time. For Solar System objects the absolute magnitude is what it would have at a distance of 1AU. But it does appear that for Caesar's comet they are referring to apparent magnitude. -- Kheider (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information on absolute magnitude was originally added to the article on 21 October 2010. -- Kheider (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does This Article Omit Edmund Halley, Sir Isaac Newton, and William Whiston's belief that Caesar's Comet Had appeared four times since 44 and had a period of 575 years?[edit]

Whiston, William. The cause of the deluge demonstrated: being an appendix to the second edition of the New theory of the earth. United Kingdom, n.p, 1725. The cause of the deluge demonstrated: being an appendix to the second edition of the New theory of the earth By William Whiston · 1725 (Whiston, p) comet with period of 575 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Comet p. 135 “Araxes is far distant according to Strabe Pliny Ptolemy. By the Mountains of Ararat very many understand the Gordyean Mountains which either are a part of Taurus, or adjoining to it. Berosus speaking of the Deluge and ... ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Mountains p. 188 “I shall presently shew that it is no other than that very Comet which came by the Earth at the Beginning of Noah's Deluge and which was the Cause of the same.” p. 189 “For it being necessary that the Orbit it self intersect the Ecliptick itself in the 17th Degree of Taurus, ...” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Comet p. 191 “V The Period of this Comet most exactly agrees to the fame Time. I mean to 7 Revolution's in 4028 Years the Interval from the Deluge till its last Appearance 1680. For as Sir Isaac Newton firft obsery d from its Elliptick Curvature before it disappear'd that its Period must be in general above 500 Years. So has he and Dr Halley since obferv'd that the same Comet has been seen four times viz the 44th Year before Chrift AD 531 or 532 AD 1106 and AD 1680 and that by consequence it makes a Revolution in about 575 Years Now if we make but a very small Allowance for the old Periods before Chrift and suppose that one with another it has revolv d in 575 Years we shall find that 7 such Periods amount to 4028 Years exactly according to that Number since the Deluge.” Most Interesting, each appearing does seem significant:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Present_State_of_the_Republick_of_Le/rE8JAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Taurus+Deluge+OR+Flood&pg=PA332&printsec=frontcover#spf=1626028376099 Nice summary of the above

By William Whiston · 1737 Whiston, William. A New Theory of the Earth, from Its Original, to the Consummation of All Things: Wherein the Creation of the World in Six Days, the Universal Deluge, and the General Conflagration, as Laid Down in the Holy Scriptures, are Shewn to be Perfectly Agreeable to Reason and Philosophy. With a Large Introduction Concerning the Genuine Nature, Style and Extent of the Mosaick History of the Creation. United Kingdom, J. Whiston, 1737. https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_New_Theory_of_the_Earth_from_Its_Origi/pBlaAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Taurus+Deluge+OR+Flood&pg=RA2-PA191-IA3&printsec=frontcover#spf=1626008827242

p. 407 “I always in such Cases suppose at the Time of the passing by of the Comet about the middle of the second Month from the Autumnal Equinox the latter Part of Leo being 100 Degrees onward from the Point opposite to the Sun will nearly determine the Latitude of the larger Continent db c as by consequence will the latter Part of Aquarius that of the smaller dac On ”