Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

In Article <mtbg7.59070$sv1.787736@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:
> In Article <3B812097.336950E3@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>>>> The thing I don't understand is why M31 (with a 3.7
>>>> Magnitude) is not visible to the naked eye? Stars with
>>>> this magnitude are very bright.
>>>
>>> It's called "surface brightness" and the total magnitude
>>> is equivalent to it's light coming from a point source such
>>> as a single star. ... Since M31 is spread out over a full half
>>> degree of area (full moon covers a half degree of sky) it is
>>> actually much fainter without optical aid than a 3.7
>>> magnitude point source.
>>
>> It seems that all stars are not alike. ...
>
> Indeed, and some things aren't stars at all.  M31 is not a star.

Well neither is Planet X!  It's a brown dwarf.  They are usually
referred to as that, not as a "star", but during magnitude discussions
on this usenet I've had it thrown at me that amateurs should have NO
problem seeing it as it should be a point source, like a star.  I've had
it thrown at me that something of a magnitude that could be seen,
hypothetically, by an amateur should be visible REGARDLESS of size, and
now we have something that covers the sky like the Moon and it can be
hard to see because it is diffuse (the term I used endlessly to describe
Planet X) and one takes into consideration SURFACE BRIGHTNESS, or total
magnitude, when computing magnitude! To repeat the viewing specs last
stated on Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C.3AEA19C7@zetatalk.com>.

    Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT,
    but does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf.
    This is what we're looking for, appearance and size wise, etc.
    - Search for an object down to Magnitude 11
    - Size in scope is 2-3 times that of Pluto
    - Is not yet reflecting sunlight (81 times less than Pluto)
    - Has a diffuse glow as is a slow-smolder brown dwarf
    - Has a redish color, so filter for red for best results
    - Brightness increase detectable not until late 2001 (by computer)
    - Coordinates per Zetas as ephemeris will not describe path
    - Distance is approximately 9 Sun-Pluto distances away
    - Retrograde motion now and dropping below ecliptic
    - Rapid passage in 2003

    DIFFUSE
    It does not shine with the intensity of most stars, but has a dull,
    diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a dying star, a
    faint, blurry, reddish glow. Your eye would pass over it if
    attuned to the pin points that are the stars. A star is intense
    in the center and rapidly diminishes in intensity toward the
    edges of the spot you call a star. The light from a star comes
    from a single point and fans out, the periphery a bit less than
    the center, increasingly, but the center very intense. The 12th
    Planet, being nearer, is giving you light rays from its entire
    surface, so the light has an even quality to it.
        ZetaTalk™ in Comet Visible

    REDISH GLOW
    [Planet X] has both heat and light, generated from
    within its core. ... The light is diffused in the atmosphere, and
    returns to the land surface, but emerges from the core to
    interact with the atmosphere only via the surface of the deep oceans,
    which cover the majority of the planet's surface. You may equate
    this to volcanic activity, where the Earth has numerous
    places both above ground and under the oceans that ooze
    molten lava. Just so [Planet X] has places where the molten
    and churning substance in its core escapes to the surface. ...
    Light only escapes the core where what is essentially volcanic
    activity under the water occurs. Of course, this would occur if
    there was volcanic activity on the land surface of the planet,
    but there is little land surface, and this long ago hardened.
        ZetaTalk™ in [Planet X] Glow

    The composition is not the composition of reflecting sunlight,
    but is almost exclusively in the spectrum you would call red
    light. Thus you will do best if you filter for red light [including
    infra-red], and by this we mean filtering out all but red light.
        ZetaTalk™ in Comet Visible

In Article <isl5otsp1udoctrogc03c6jjqi5u81p33n@4ax.com> Bob Officer wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:37:11 -0500, Nancy Lieder
>> M31 is visible without a telescope. All one has to do is have
>> dark adapted eyes, and a tube to block out stray light.
>
> Use a little averted vision and There it is...  Faint, but it is there.
>
> M31 was known of in 905 AD and mentioned in the 10th century
> by Al Sufi. Long before the telescope was developed.
>
> This technique also works with M31, it takes very dark skies
> and very still night. All you get is a hint of fuzziness.