Planet X: NOT a Star

The Zetas have stated that Planet X, a brown dwarf, pixel for pixel,
does NOT have the appearance of a star.

    [Planet X] ... appears as large as a star as viewed by the
    naked eye. It does not shine with the intensity of most
    stars, but has a dull, diffuse, glow. It appears to be ... 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. [Planet X], being nearer, is giving
    you light rays from its entire surface, so the light has an
    even quality to it. ... Its appearance does not look like the
    familiar objects you set out to identify when you scan the
    sky - pin points with intense centers that are stars ...
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

Yet the bluster from some posters states that there should be no
difference.

Bill Nelson wrote:
>>> would be a point source. ... it would not appear
>>> diffuse - and would only cover 1 pixel on a CCD
>>> image.
>
>> there is not any problems to detect planet-X just as
>> there are no problems to detect stars.
>
> if a point source is spread over two pixels on a CCD,
> where it would normally hit only one - you have just
> lost over a magnitude of detectability.

In Article <96wj7.3135$W52.143518@weber.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:

>> As small as a point, perhaps, as are stars, but without
>> the intensity of light that stars do from their center.  ...
>> Pixel for pixel the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse
>> (being a slow smoldering brown dwarf) as M31, but with a
>> lower magnitude (estimated at magnitude 11 during the
>> spring 2001 sightings) and is reflecting sunlight less
>> that Pluto (calculated to be 81 times less, essentially no
>> sunlight reflection).
>
> Stars don't shine from their centers.  They shine from their
> *diffuse* (to use your term) photosphere, surrounding their
> entire bulk. ... Diffuse objects are indistinguishible from
> "sharp" objects at any distance that renders them effective
> point sources.

The Zetas wish to comment.

    Stars are NOWHERE the size, at the distance they are
    from Earth, that they appear in your scopes or to your eye
    when gazing skyward on a clear night.  What you see is a
    diminishing light, from an intense center, to the periphery.
    Should this circle, the star, have the light UNIFORM, there
    would be very few stars visible.  Why so?  The light your eye
    or scopes are registering is due to the extreme intensity in
    the very center.  In discussions on how many pixels, a
    point-source, Planet X or a star might assume during
    viewing, a star ALWAYS floods more than a pixel with
    light, as this is dependent more upon the circle that the
    eye or scope can encompass, not the source.  Should this
    viewing area be reduced to the star itself, and not scattering
    light, is would be infintessimally smaller than a pixel.
    Such is the intensity of light from stars that even at their
    distance, they flood the viewable area with scattered light
    that is STILL intense.  Comparing this setup with the
    diffuse light from a smoldering brown dwarf is akin to
    comparing the glow from a fire-fly in the nearby bushes
    to a laser aimed at your eye from a few hundred feet away.
    If you still had an eye left, you'd KNOW the difference.
    Intensity matters.
        ZetaTalk™