Re: Planet X: MAY Coordinates [OT]

Interesting... this was exactly the quote i was reffering to.

Bill Nelson wrote:
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>
>:> Why do you not include the fact that she said it was visible
>:> as a 2nd magnitude object which changed to 11th magnitude
>:> as it came closer?
>
>: Why is it you fail to register the difference between ABSOLUTE and
>: APPARENT magnitude?
>
> Shame, shame, Nancy. It has been obviously clear that you have never
> had the slightest idea about various methods of stating visual magnitude.
>
> If you do now, it is because you have been doing some reading. If you
> have, keep it up. There may be some small amount of hope for you.

1. It didn't chance as it came closer, both statements were in the *same*
   piece of zetatalk.com text. I quoted that already so here is the URL:
   http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p29.htm
2. An Solar-system object's absolute Magnitude is the aparent magnitude
   were you no 1 AU. So since the P-X is at 9 PLuto-Sun distances, that
   absolute magnitude number will be MUCH brighter than it's *aparent*
   magnitude.

In other words: Nancy was EXACTLY right, as in /spot on/, even though she
has no astronomy knowledge, which would seem to indicate her source does
have this knowledge. Yeah: let the emotions take over now... hehehe, sorry
guys, but that is what logic says, deal with it.

This Magnitude 2.0 or 11 is also non issue, and a time-waster btw too! :((.

regards,
Jos
(ps, can't find the size of the dust-cloud right now...)