Re: Planet X VIEWING, Restated

It is obviously J2000 as this whole discussion about coordinates emerged
in 1995.  Regarding degrees of hours. This was last discussed at the end
of August (when David Tholen was a party), and prior to that was raised
(by our own dear David Tholen, again) in July.  We have short memories
here, it seems.  Below (bounded by !!!!!!!! lines), the answer on August
30, 2001, which includes the answer (bounded by %%%%% lines) in July 15,
2001, which includes an e-mail (bounded in ***** lines) from a friend of
Steve's.  The answer has not changed. If someone can give me the
technical term for how the Zetas have chosen to report the coordinates,
I'll plug it into the VIEWING postings, and we'll hopefully not have
this issue raised again. Unless David forgets, again.

In Article <ong06rvejw.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu> Craig Markwardt wrote: 
>> Bob Officer wrote 
>>> And what co-ordinates where those, Was it hours or 
>>> degrees of Right Ascension? Was it J2000, or 1950? 
>
> Steve Havas writes:
>> I gave the operator the coordinates in this format: RA: xx.xxxx   
>> Dec: xx.xxxx and did not specify hours or degrees. From several 
>> astronomers I spoke to way back then this does not present any 
>> problems to locating an object. J2000 or 1950? I did not ask 
>> him at the time but I would imagine that he would have used 
>> the most up-to date system.
>
> No, the difference between hours and degrees is a big one, and in 
> this case cannot be determined unambiguously just from the 
> number itself. A value of 50 would obviously be degrees since the
> maximum number of hours is 24, but a value of 4 could be either 
> degrees or hours. From one of the Zeta web pages I guess it is 
> hours, but it is not clear at all.

In Article <pN8P7.107860$OW.37065106@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> Especially after Nancy differenced her coordinates 
> with those of 2001 KX76 and reported the difference 
> as being "12 degrees to the left".  The only way the 
> subtraction could yield 12 is if her coordinates were
> in degrees.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:20:24 -0500
Article <3B8EA007.531955E0@zetatalk.com> 
Planet X Coordinates, Clarified 1

Regarding questions being raised on whether the Zeta coordinates are
degrees or hours.  Questions on degrees or hours were asked or discussed
in July:

In Article <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10107141627370.26035-100000@shell.golden.net> John Latala wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> I'll repeat the Zeta coordinates, to set this straight:
>>          RA 4.45732 Dec 11.91793 on Sep 30, 2001
>
> So is your RA degrees or hours?

And

In Article <%6147.1266$0s2.235876@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
>> The article stated 2001 KX76 was:
>>     RA     16 16 06.12
>>     Dec   -19 13 45.6
>> and the Zeta coordinates for Planet X on July 3rd were
>>     RA      4.96112
>>     Dec    15.74311
>
> The point on the sky opposite the location of 2001
> KX76 is at RA 04 16 06.12 and DEC +19 13 45.6.
> That means your coordinates are less than 4 degrees
> further to the south.

And on July 15, 2001 in Article <3B51E1CA.E211973F@zetatalk.com> I
answered:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In Article <%6147.1266$0s2.235876@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> It won't change the fact that you originally reported the
> right ascension difference in degrees, .. You treated
> YOUR OWN coordinates as if the right ascension was
> expressed in DEGREES.  That puts your coordinates in
> the Pisces-Pegasus border region, not Orion.

It puts them at RA 4, etc. whether I call them tomatoes or carrots.  It
puts them in the map at the
     Path as Viewed from Earth page
     (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm)
which I have forever been pointing to.  It puts them at the coordinates
by date on the
     Coordinates page
     (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
which I have forever been pointing to.  If I call Orion a star cluster
instead of a constellation, this does not change the position of Orion
on a skymap I'm pointing to.  It means I don't understand what term to
use when referencing Orion.  Only someone attempting to confuse would
say so.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

And you know, as David Tholen indicated in discussing the issue above,
HE was not confused, nor was an amateur astronomer who commented about
the RA and Dec given by the Zetas in trying to come up with a "what it
could be" from known objects in the sky maps.  Even an amateur can see
that the coordinates given by the Zetas are decimal places after the RA
and Dec, without needing to ask.  From a posting dated June 9, 2001,
Article <3B2B5E54.E463CD8C@zetatalk.com>, related to the Lowel sighting
in April, 2001.

**************************************************

Subject: [tt-watch] My outing at Lowell Observatory
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:06:45 -0000

    The next day, Monday April 2nd 2001, I emailed an
    acquaintance who is a very experienced amateur astronomer.
    I asked him how I might determine what the object that I
    saw was and I gave him the description and coordinates.
    Here is the relevant part of his reply:

        I have checked this position WITHIN SEVERAL
        DEGREES (my emphasis) and found no nebula,
        galaxy or planetary nebula. I did, however, find the
        following open clusters near your position:

            NGC1807 051042 +163200 ~20 stars,
                Mag: 7.0 diam:~16'/arc
            NGC1817 051206 +164200 ~60 stars,
                Mag: 7.7 diam:~17'/arc

*****************************************************

So those are decimal places, whatever the term for that might be.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!