Re: Some Thoughts on Planet X

Steve Havas wrote:
> In Article <[email protected]> David Tholen wrote:
>> Steve Havas writes:
>>
>>> Doesn't matter; still won't make it "diffuse".
>>>
>>>> Also, if it has a large dust cloud around it could it not
>>>> appear even larger than that? Pehaps even a magnitude of
>>>> several times as large?
>>>>
>>> Even an order of magnitude won't make it "diffuse" at most
>>> sites.
>>>
> So it could appear diffuse depending on how what level of
> magnification one is viewing or imaging with?

Yes, Josh stayed with the discussion long enough to get the debunking
crowd to slip, and admit that there are SEVERAL types of magnitudes,
depending upon how close an object is - absolute (10 parsecs away),
apparent (closer), apparent heliocentric (within the solar system), and
some others yet I think. That's an old debunking trick, talking about
oranges as though apples don't exist.  They even tried to get a long
discussion going on a speculative size and distance, when specifics had
been given.  After a time, the readership was supposed to forget which
discussion was which, and take the conclusion on the speculative data as
that remembered.  They hoped Josh and others had been distracted by
character assassination, which was ongoing against Josh at that time.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

At http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00816.htm

Subject:   Re: Planet X on CNN
Date:      Mon May 28 09:44:05 2001
Article:   <[email protected]>

[email protected] wrote:
> Absolutely.  For example, I have brought to bear against what Nancy
> posts the fact that an object smaller than Pluto cannot be "diffuse".

It is said to have a larger dust-cloud around it, if this cloud is
lit up by the internal planet/smoldering-dwarf, the object will appear
to be much larger.

Could that be an explanation for some of the misunderstandings? The
planet will be 4-earth diameters, no problem there, but then computing
the angular size, you would have to take into account *what* you see,
and if the planet is surrounded by a iron-oxide dust-cloud, you would
probably be looking also at that (kindof like a lit-up nebula).

Regards,
Jos

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

At http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00819.htm

Subject:  Re: Planet X: MAGNITUDE Clarification 2
Date:     Mon, 28 May 2001 19:14:16 -0500
Article:  <[email protected]>

Magnus Nyborg wrote:
>In Article <[email protected]> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> - given that the Sun is considered to be magnitude 4.85
>
> You are only about 32.85 magnitudes off, with the Sun
> actually being magnitude -28, a factor of almost 14000
> billion times...close, but no cigar!

Gee, S. Welknelk stated it was 4.85, and no one objected.  Can we all
get on the same page here?

In Article <[email protected]>
> Why all the BS about the difference between ABSOLUTE
> magnitude and APPARENT magnitude? Our own sun has an
> ABSOLUTE magnitude of +4.85 (if viewed from 10
> parsecs distance from earth, standard definition).

David Knisely wrote:
> Absolute Magnitude is defined as the magnitude a
> light-emitting object would show if it were 10 parsecs
> (32.6 light years) away from the observer.  The only
> solar-system object which would be visible at 10 parsecs
> (at least to the eye) would be the sun, and it would be
> magnitude 4.82 at that distance.  Some comets or
> asteroids can be given a sort of "1-AU" magnitude
> (the brightness as seen at 1 astronomical unit away
> from the sun and the observer), but the term Absolute
> Magnitude is generally reserved for the 10 parsec
> distance.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

At http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00820.htm

Subject:  Re: Planet X: MAGNITUDE Clarification 1
Date:     Mon, 28 May 2001 19:15:05 -0500
Article:  <[email protected]>

David Knisely wrote:
> Actually, I should have said "a Heliocentric observer".
> A solar system "absolute magnitude" ("H") would be
> for an object located 1 Astronomical Unit (about 149.6
> million kilometers) from the sun and theoretically
> observed from the sun's position (assuming someone
> could actually do that).  For example, an object with a
> magnitude of 2 at only 1 A.U. from the sun and
> observed from the sun which then was 11th magnitude
> at a new position farther away would be about 39.8 A.U.
> away from the sun (close to the mean distance of Pluto
> from the sun).

What about an Apparent Magnitude 2.0 when viewed from Earth during the
Passage, as diagramed to the Zeta specs at the Point of Passage page
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03y.htm)?  This is much less than
1 AU, being more or less 2/5 of an Earth-Sun distance.  The Zetas said
somewhere, 14 million miles from Earth, no closer.  This would make
Planet X brighter than Magnitude 2.0 (H) and thus an Apparent Magnitude
11 at 9 Sun-Pluto distances, I suspect.  (Asking for a math assist here,
being a math dummy big time).