Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

Magnus Nyborg wrote:
> The image at [URL] is a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the
> smaller ones are much dimmer at about mag 15) that is about the
> same brightness that you claim planet-X to be. The galaxy also
> extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends, meaning
> it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
>
> I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the
> simplest ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?

The Zeta wish to repond.

    You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
    to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
    is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent.  M31 is
    not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
    intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
    registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
    cannot?  Why?  Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
    Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
        ZetaTalk™