Re: Planet X: IMO Right, Nancy Wrong, about When to Look (long)
In Article <c6cdf9f8.0206201828.2b698d69@posting.google.com> I M Openmind wrote in message
> In Article <EHoQ8.45793$s82.3673466@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> Steve Havas wrote in message
>> In Article <c6cdf9f8.0206191628.71a36db8@posting.google.com> I M Openmind wrote
>>> In Article <k84Q8.38313$Lf2.3005714@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> Steve Havas wrote
>>>> In Article <c6cdf9f8.0206190749.641b0a53@posting.google.com>I M Openmind wrote
>>>>> In Article <Cz6O8.3006$s82.214151@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> Steve Havas wrote
>>>>>> Looks like IMO who claims to being schooled in science gets it wrong and
>>>>>> Nancy gets it right! Sunrise is at 7:52am not 8:51am in Cape Town on June 24
>>>>>> and gets progressively earlier so that area would not be viewable at 7:52 as
>>>>>> the sun would be directly shinning on it. I think you must have thought they
>>>>>> were observing DST but that only goes from October until March in the
>>>>>> Southern Hemisphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I could tell you were correct about that area being visible just
>>>>>> above the horizon in the early hours in late July in the N. Hemisphere or
>>>>>> so. In anycase, if this monster is soon visible to amateurs who like to get
>>>>>> up in the early wee hours then we should have an exciting and controversial
>>>>>> late summer and fall!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am correct about the visibility in SA as well as the USA Steve. The
>>>>> shift of one hour you advocate applies to both the time at which
>>>>> Nancy's coordinates will rise as well as twilight and does not
>>>>> therefore affect the visibilty. Surely you looked at the star chart I
>>>>> posted showing just how the sky will appear just before dawn in
>>>>> Capetown
>>>>>
>>>>> Southern hemisphere viewers will be able to confirm the existance or
>>>>> lack of existance of Nancy's planet in a week ... it will be
>>>>> interesting to see what they report.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, you are incorrect, a window of visibility does not exist in Capetown on
>>>> June 24.
>>>> - Nancy's position rises at 6:00AM
>>>> - Nancy's position 15 degrees above horizon at 7:22AM
>>>> - Sun 6 degrees below horizon at 7:22AM
>>>> - Sun rises 7:52AM
>>>>
>>>> It's a small point as time is passing fast but there is no way one could
>>>> possibly have a good viewing of that area because it would be washed out in
>>>> the dawn by the time it gets up 15 degrees with the sun only being 6 degrees
>>>> below horizon. It will take until early July to have the conditions existing
>>>> where Nancy's coordinates are 15 deg above horizon with the sun 12 deg below
>>>> by at least an hour before sunrise.
>>>>
>>>> However, it does appear that you were correct regarding Madison, WI for July
>>>> 17, 2002 as I had put that area at 5 hours east of GMT when it is in fact 6
>>>> hours east. That position does indeed rise at 2:49.
>>>
>>> What position are you calling "Nancy's position"? I am using her
>>> values posted where
>>> she has
>>> RA 4.404983 Dec 12.13895 Jun 30, 2002
>>> RA 4.402098 Dec 12.13698 Jun 22, 2002
>>> this is in Nancy units but converts to
>>> 4:24:10 12:08:15 interpolated to June 24
>>>
>>> That position rises in Capetown SA 18d27m E, 33d55m S
>>> at 5:32 and is 15 degrees above the horizon at 6:52
>>> the sun rises at 7:51 and is 12 degrees below the horizon at 6:52
>>> Thus the window of opportunity that I careful defined (coords 15
>>> degrees up at nautical twilight) begins June 24, 2002 as I stated.
>>
>> I was using Aldebaran as Nancy's position as I thought that was the position
>> you were using. I get the same numbers for rising etc. when I use 4:24:10
>> 12:08:15 as the position so it does appear a limited pre-dawn viewing is
>> possible at that time for those coordinates. Whether or not it is bright
>> enough to be seen at those light levels is a good question but viewing can
>> only get better as time goes on.
>
> This demonstrates Havas's lack of competance to comment on
> astronomical matters. In the end, he admits that I was correct all
> along. He happily uses Aldebaran rather than the position that Nancy
> has posted ... my guess is that he is simply unable to interpret
> "Nancy Units". His lack of understanding that for a far southern
> site, Aldebaran would be a full 5 degrees lower in the sky than the
> Nancy position again shows his lack of ability to be a source on
> matters astronomical. Of course had he simply looked at my posted
> plot of the sky from Capetown (
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/whenNwhere.htm ) he would have seen
> the true orientation of the sun, Aldebaran, and the Nancy position.
> Of course, Havas is happy to accept Nancy's word that he saw her
> planet but is unwilling to open his eyes and mind to actual facts.
Give it a rest IMO, you originally screwed up on the DST and I errantly used
Aldebaran as the position. Your site still does not show the correct
position of the sun, Aldebaran from Capetown because at 7:52am the sun
should be shown rising on the horizon so why do you keep referencing your
plot when it is incorrect? Anyways, all this is moot because as Nancy has
mentioned in her last post that from what people have been telling her the
pre-dawn light polluted sky (2 hours before sunrise) does not make for
optimal viewing. Especially for an object as dim and diffuse as seen on the
images last winter and taking into consideration it being a certain degree
larger and brighter now. Last year, that astronomer I dealt with also told
me that those coordinates would not be viewable again until the fall (from
Vancouver). So, why would you tell people it should be visible in the sky an
hour before sunrise or do you not know how dark of a sky is needed to
adequately see dim, diffuse objects?
Steve Havas
