Comment on "On physical interpretation of the Poynting-Robertson effect"
R. Srikanth
2000
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
In response to the comments of astro-ph/0006426 on Srikanth (Icarus 1999), we clarify, and thereby justify, the definition of Poynting-Robertson drag adopted in the latter. We confirm that dust absorption is a necessary condition while re-emission is neither necessary nor sufficient for the inspiralling of a rest-isotropically emitting dust.
Abstract licence: CC0
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.