[OT] Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

In article <[email protected]>, Bob Officer wrote:
>On 1 Sep 2001 11:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (josX) wrote:
>> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>> josX <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
>>> "observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
>>
>> (Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
>>
>> You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
>> (that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
>
> Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
> misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
> understand what was being said.

'Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
 misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
 understand what was being said.'

You got to be kidding me this is your cover-story...

>> There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
>> (no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
>> Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
>> much closer remember ?
>
> Actually there is no "search going on now for a missing planet.

There *is* none? Why? They searched for it for 100+ years.
Why does someone or some group stop searching something that they have
searched for longer than a human lifetime? Indeed, there seems to be
only one explanation.

> There has been found no missing mass. Now that the data from the flybys 
> has been taken in to account and the masses of Uranus and Neptune
> calculated to a more precise amount. We find no need for a 10th
> planet.

When you build a house, and discover using cm's that you have a problem
on the South-wall, two beams don't touch by 2 cm during constructions. 
Are you going to call someone who can measure in micrometers to see if
it disapears?

>> How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
>> and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
>> Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where professionals
>> pay money to get time (or however that works).
>
> I have a 30 inch telescope...  and a 16 inch portable scope...  both
> as good as or better than some observatory's  scopes.
>
> What do you really thinks makes a observatory scope?

There is basically 2 definitions possible: the one where it means
"full staffed, highly technical, multimillion, well placed globally,
professionals crave time there" observatories (you know what I mean),
and the one that says that any shed or build-out from your roof that
houses a telescope is by definition an observatory, too.
Read the zetasite, you will see in the piece recently quoted here,
they talk about "high powered" stuff, this planet is discovered with
a "special satalite", and of course it wasn't discovered until 1983.
Doesn't this all mean, it is a rather difficult target until 1983?

It hasn't come much closer too, so I guess it will remain a difficult
target for some time, too. It is magnitude 11th in visible spectrum,
but it is covering an area as is said in ZetaTalk "your eye would miss
it if attuned to the pinpoints that are the stars". It was recently
admitted that targets covering an angle appear MUCH weaker than their
magnitude number, something with M31 being 3.7, but not easy to see.
When that came up, were you debunkers at it to prove this cannot be,
and that this object must be a hallucination and not exist because
"it's descriptions are mutually contradictory", that "3.7 should be easy
visible by the unaided eye if it existed"? Why weren't you; you ppl
seem to delight, day and night, in zifting about this kind of a thing.

Interestingly there are no falsifying pictures, too, as of yet, while
it should be easy to doctor-out P-X if it happened to be there. Afraid
there will be a small increase in noise on the zetacoordinates when
comparing multiple photo's? (just guessing).

Although this planet still needs "observatory grade scopes", it could
be an interesting Orion season :)). Perhaps it is good to know what
magnitude of star you need to capture, so you will also capture P-X...
oh yeah: "set equipment for mag 11, filter for red".

regards,
Jos

PS:  Are you debunkers at it and being so irrational and boring so readers
     will be bored by P-X ?