Re: [OT] Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
From: Bob Officer <bobofficers@earthlink.net>
> On 2 Sep 2001 06:16:29 GMT, joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>> In article <8ev2ptsad9o6krm9c25oid89kklio6ovfj@4ax.com>, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 1 Sep 2001 11:10:04 GMT, joshb@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>>>> josX <joshb@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
>>>>> "observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
>>>>
>>>> (Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
>>>>
>>>> You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
>>>> (that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
>>>
>>> Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
>>> misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
>>> understand what was being said.
>>
>> 'Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
>> misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
>> understand what was being said.'
>>
>> you got to be kidding me this is your cover-story...
>
> No have you actually read the whole article? There is a germ of the
> truth there. It was a slow day and some science writer attempted to
> punch up the story. Very Simple.
Yes, read it. Reads like an announcement of the likely finding of another
planet (if i remember correctly).
>>>> There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
>>>> (no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
>>>> Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
>>>> much closer remember ?
>>>
>>> Actually there is no "search going on now for a missing planet.
>>
>> There *is* none? Why? They searched for it for 100+ years.
>> Why does someone or some group stop searching something that they have
>> searched for longer than a human lifetime? Indeed, there seems to be
>> only one explanation.
>
> Yes, the only explanations is the math and current planetary masses
> show there is no need for a 'planet' outside the 8th orbit.
Did you know that this is one of your worst cover-stories?
Anybody with half a brain can know that astronomers would not waste
100+ years looking for something when their observations could simply
be exlainedaway by more precise data.
Second fatal problem for your story is that if the masses were incorrect,
astronomers would be looking at Neptune-Uranus interactions, to see why
the perturbations behave differently than thought. Maybe there is a moon
they missed on Uranus, maybe their drifts something like rings around
Neptune, that kind of thing. Anything that can influence the perturbations
of known planets unto eachother.
Do i really need to tell that only asynchronious perturbations, "perturbations
out of nowhere, suddenly popping up when the known planets are not perturbing"
are a reason to look for another planet ?
And here is another stretch in the story-line itself:
Pluto was the one that was the result of searching for Planet-X, right?
(One of the debunkers has claimed that.)
So, the story is basically:
1) astronomers make formulas that describe perturbations
2) they derive the mass of the planets also from how they perturb eachother
(right?)
3) then they notice something is amiss with their predictions
4) instead of recalibrating and perhaps redoing their formulas, they
suddenly start looking for a Planet-X
5) this is just a dumn error, because they should have noticed their
problem was within their error-bars.
6) this error lasted for 100+ years
(yes, this story IS a big stretch...)
7) Pluto is discovered, it turned out to be extremely small
8) the person saying it was not the one causing the anomalous perturbations
BECAUSE it was too small (and perhaps in the wrong locations, too?)
is just a nutcase according to present-day debunkers, because the
perturbations are not caused by another planet, but simply is within
the error-bars.
9) astronomer who proclaimed enthousiastically to go find this Planet-X and
go abroad with a big scope dies suddenly and the scope is immideately
retrieved
(just facts, right? right.)
10) The Pioneers/Voyagers (dunno which) flyby, obtaining more numbers
behind the dot for the masses of the planets. This means, the error-bars
for the prediction of perturbations of these known planets can be
reduced.
11) According to debunkers: this explains it all.
12) Major news-agencies carry a story of a new planet which is discovered,
calling it "Planet-X" (which was the name the old astronomers gave it
who saw it's perturbation-effects, and hunted for it).
Is this an accurate depiction of your story?
> An improper estimation of the planetary masses of Uranus and Neptune
> was the fault. The correct masses were derived from the flybys of the
> known masses of the man made satellites. It is amazing what happens
> when on can plug in the data, and things work out right.
>
> Did you know you can derive the mass of the Earth by dropping a known
> mass and timing it's fall. Same works for the Moon, and IIRC that was
> one of the experiments done by one of the Moon missions.
>
> Flybys and orbital periods of probes have allow us to measure the
> masses of much of the solar system.
>
> Yes the only explanation is as more data is received, the error bars
> of human knowledge is reduced.
>
> Most people stopped looking for the 10 planet when it was shown there
> was no reason to look for such a planet.
Most ppl will do exactly what the debunkers tell them to.
Thank God for the German Scientist who researched Tunguska, and is not
afraid to call pseudo-science pseudo-science when he sees it, and doesn't
go to the boss to ask "what shall I do about it, Sir".
> Nancy is a nutcase.
Nancy is one of the only (the only?) persons making this group worthwhile
as far as theories go.
Isn't it interesting, that the Zeta/Nancy said *all* *along* it
was a NATURAL GASS EXPLOSION in 1908 that caused massive "tree-tumbling"?
How can she know that! Makes you think?
Official Science, and debunkers allike said it was a COMET EXPLODING IN
THE AIR.
Who is getting it right ..., Bob ?
> It is mag 2, then as it gets closer it is mag 10?
> It is defuse, by then it is a brown dwarf which will become a pulsar?
> It is in Orion or then it is Pisces...
Mag 2 on the whole spectrum, "set equipment for mag 11". It was there all
along.
It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
>>> There
>>> has been found no missing mass. Now that the data from the flybys has
>>> been taken in to account and the masses of Uranus and Neptune
>>> calculated to a more precise amount. we find no need for a 10th
>>> planet.
>>
>> When you build a house, and discover using cm's that you have a problem
>> on the South-wall, two beams don't touch by 2 cm during constructions.
>> Are you going to call someone who can measure in micrometers to see if
>> it disapears?
>
> No! I fire the contractor....
Which means, you will fire all known astronomers, and even your NASA.
> in this case the orbital periods were
> estimated and the wrong masses used. When the flybys took place we
> used the known masses of the probes and derived the proper masses for
> the Both of Planets. It also gave us accurate masses for Saturn and
> Jupiter.
Exactly: "debunkers hire somebody who can measure it more precisely".
>>>> How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
>>>> and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
>>>> Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where proffesionals
>>>> pay money to get time (or however that works).
>>>
>>> I have a 30 inch telescope... and a 16 inch portable scope... both
>>> as good as or better than some observatory's scopes.
>>>
>>> What do you really thinks makes a observatory scope?
>>
>> There is basically 2 definitions possible: the one where it means
>> "full staffed, highly technical, multimillion, well placed globally,
>> proffesionals crave time there" observatories (you know what i mean),
>
> Sure... And guess what. I have given time...
>
>> and the one that says that any shed or build-out from your roof that
>> houses a telescope is by definition an observatory, too.
>
> So, I can see down to Mag 16, and photograph to Mag 20 or so with no
> problems. This is the 16 inch scope which the standing off to let
> Nancy use. I will travel to a location of her choice and allow her to
> tell me exactly were she wishes to look. I will give her all the time
> she needs.
But you won't make pictures of the zetacoordinates and send the negatives
or raw data to Kahuna, am i correct?
>> Read the zetasite, you will see in the piece recently quoted here,
>> they talk about "high powered" stuff, this planet is discovered with
>> a "special satalite", and ofcourse it wasn't discovered until 1983.
>
> What was seen by IRAS was a distant cloud of Gas. When IRAS was 1st
> sent up, many people didn't even know how to use and understand what
> they actually saw. One observation of a gas cloud was misunderstood
> and misreported.
How come i sense apprehencion along the lines of "oh my God... i hope
he buys thisone..." ?
So, let me chop it into small digestable pieces:
1) This IRAS satalite is simply surveying some wavelength, OFCOURSE scientists
know how that works.
2) They send an satalite into orbit without knowing whatever the hell it is
going to measure? Are these things cheap or something? No, they are not
cheap, they take years to build. Or are NASA scientists just a bunch of
loonies hacking some hardware together and blasting it off just for the
fun of launching rockets with taxpdollars ("hell, we got to do something!")?
3) Planet-X has a dustcloud surrounding it, of iron-oxide, which is reddish
(see zetatalk.com).
Maybe that is the cloud you are referring to....
The truth is so very simple, isn't it:
Planet-X was searched for, for 100+ years, because both Neptune and
Uranus showed anomalous movements. Pluto was discovered in this
search but was not the one so they kept looking. In 1983 it was
located by means or an infrared satalite, evidentally, this must
be a very faint target.
> Have you even read discussion about some of the missing NGC and IC
> items which were seen on the red and blue survey plates?
>> Doesn't this all mean, it is a rather difficult target until 1983?
>
> No... IRAS was an infrared detector.
Exactly....
>> It hasn't come much closer too, so i guess it will remain a difficult
>> target for some time, too. It is magnitude 11th in visible spectrum,
>
> Hey, no big deal I see stuff that dim all the time.
I am looking forward to your steady stream of zetacoordinates pictures
with long exposure-times, made available in their rawest formats to
The Small Kahuna.
>> but it is covering an area as is said in ZetaTalk "your eye would miss
>> it if attuned to the pinpoints that are the stars". It was recently
>
> At F4, the 16 inch scope would pop right out at you. I use it for
> looking at galaxies and planetary nebulas. Trust me, an 11th mag
> object is easy.
Then make pictures with it, lots of it.
You even want to go to the trouble of showing Nancy what a nice scope
you have, then you should surely be able to make some pictures and make
them available.
>> admitted that targets covering an angle appear MUCH weaker than their
>> magnitude number, something with M?? being 3.7, but not easy to see.
>
> Extended objects. buy lad, I explained that M31 was a 3.7 dim extended
> object and can be seen with a telescope.
M31 is 3.7, yet, it is not easy to see with the naked eye, although you
can easily see magnitude 6th stars if you are outside
lightpollution.
P-X is 11th (2nd in total-spectrum, which does no good unless you operate
IRAS).
>> When that came up, were you debunkers at it to prove this cannot be,
>> and that this object must be a hallucination and not exist because
> No we proved Nancy's object couldn't be as she stated. It has to do
> with a size and magnitude relationships. One of those psychical laws
> Nancy Just Doesn't Understand. She lacks the basic math to understand
> it.
>> "it's descriptions are mutually contradictory", that "3.7 should be easy
>> visible by the unaided eye if it existed"? Why weren't you; you ppl
>> seem to delight, day and night, in zifting about this kind of a thing.
>
> "We" (TINW) people have spent hours looking at stars, galaxies,
> nebulas, planets, other assorted items. AT 3.7 mag I can see it. Even
> at extended objects can be seen. M31 is easy... M33 is a real
> challenge, Try M42 in Orion that is the Sword in Orion's belt. can you
> see it. Get up about 3:30-4:00am and take a look in two weeks (new
> moon)...
My scope is too small to have real fun with (114 mm).
>> Interestingly there are no falsifying pictures, too, as of yet, while
>
> Yawn, Have Nancy produce her pictures, She still hasn't really told us
> were it is, Film costs money. it takes time to shot a decent shot. and
> like you said, Nancy will claim it is a doctored shot. Most of us are
> tired of jumping to Nancy's lies...
But you will jump in your car with your scope in the trunk and drive to
her home to set it up on the pavement before her house so she can take
a look.
> (hey she could take me to court for calling her a liar, but she won't
> because it is the truth)
Liar.
Take me to court!
>> it should be easy to doctor-out P-X if it happened to be there. Afraid
>> there will be a small increase in noise on the zetacoordinates when
>> comparing multiple photo's? (just guessing)
> Yawn, you are a Nancy Pet.
>> Although this planet still needs "observatory grade scopes", it could
>> be an interesting Orion season :)). Perhaps it is good to know what
>> magnitude of star you need to capture, so you will also capture P-X...
>> oh yeah: "set equipment for mag 11, filter for red".
>
> Stupid Little Josh one doesn't set a scope for Magnitude....
Grasping Bob, substituting "scope" for "equipment".
>> Regards,
>> Jos
>> ps: Are you debunkers at it and being so irrational and boring so readers
>> will be bored by P-X ?
>
> You are rather stupid, instead of just ignorant. Why does Nancy seem
> to lure so many Clueless Wanks into her fold?
But you can't ignore it? If it is `stupid', let it die out of
itself. Things that are stupid usually do, unless a paid staff of
debunkers is promoting it.
Josh
