Re: Planet X: Slowing Rotation 3 (Star Sync Evidence)

In Article <O9Yw7.63447$OW.13647317@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> In Article <9pvven$fpf$1@zot.isi.edu> Brian Tung wrote:
>> David Tholen wrote:
>>> Actually, Nancy sometimes realizes when she's in an 
>>> indefensible position.  Consider the case when she 
>>> called her mythical "Planet X" magnitude 11.  Others 
>>> quickly recalled her postings from 1996 when she 
>>> claimed it was magnitude 2.  To explain the 
>>> discrepancy, she  ... started  relying on "whole 
>>> spectrum", even though there is no magnitude system
>>> defined for "whole spectrum".
>>
>> I thought that's what bolometric magnitude was.  I'm not 
>> challenging your assertion - I'm asking for a clarification 
>> of bolometric magnitude.
>
> Yes, there is such a thing as a bolometric magnitude 
> for stars. Actually, one could apply the astronomical 
> magnitude system to just about anything involving 
> numbers if you wanted to.  Any factor of 100 ratio 
> between two numbers could be described as a five 
> magnitude difference.  The problem is that the zero 
> point is quite arbitrary.  It's been arbitrarily defined as 
> 0 in the Johnson photometric system for an A0-type 
> star at 10 parsecs, but for bolometric magnitudes, it 
> appears that an F0 star was chosen ... I am not aware
> of any zero point being established for a "smoldering
> brown dwarf".  

Thanks, Brian, you actually got Dave to say something other than "do so,
did not, did too" and ADMIT that magnitude has a lot more definitions
than originally stated.

In Article <O9Yw7.63447$OW.13647317@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> Furthermore, if you go back to 1996 and read Nancy's
> postings about the brightness of the alleged "12th Planet", 
> there's nothing to indicate that she was talking about "whole 
> spectrum". That's just her latest spin doctoring.

Well, whole spectrum was in fact stated, if you look at what WAS
stated.  Perhaps not with those words, "whole spectrum", but how could
it be otherwise?  Looking at ALL the Zetas said, not just a maximum of
three words at a time (Dave's usual chop and conquer method), here's
what was said, in 1995:

    [Planet X[ is now visible to the human eye, though 
    only the educated eye would see it. At the current time
    [Planet X] is approximately magnitude 2.0 in brightness, 
    and appears as large as a star as viewed by the naked eye.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In other words, the public would not notice it and it is A PINPOINT in
size.

    It does not shine with the intensity of most stars, but has a
    dull, diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a dying 
    star, 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.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In other words, it is DIFFUSE, though small as a pinpoint, without the
intensity of light that comes from the center of what we term starlight,
and it's primary color is in the RED SPECTRUM. 

    Its distance cannot be measured, but one will notice that as 
    time passes, no other object passes before it. ... The amateur 
    astronomer may be disappointed until well after the 
    millennium, as [Planet X]'s motions across the skies are 
    only visible at this time when repeated images are taken 
    and compared by computer, and here the magnification 
    must be huge.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In other words, it is coming DEAD ON and motion across the skies will
not be a clue at the present, 1995, time. The RATE of motion will change
after the millennium, which is in sync with the later coordinates given
by the Zetas. MAGNIFICATION, ie scope zoom as observatories are capable
of, is required and COMPUTER analyzed images are required to detect
motion. Not amateur stuff. 

     1. the composition is not the composition of reflecting 
        sunlight, but is almost exclusively in the spectrum you 
        would call red light. Thus you will do best if you filter 
        for red light, and by this we mean filtering out all but 
        red light. 
            ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In other words, MAGNITUDE is NOT WHOLE SPECTRUM related.  It's in the
red range, of which infrared is included.

     2. though a large planet, 4 times as large as Earth and thus
        larger than Mars or Pluto, it is at this time at a much 
        greater distance and thus its visibility is not equivalent to
        Mars or Pluto.
            ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In other words, it is NOT VISIBLE as PLUTO is visible, due to size and
distance. 

    During the last few weeks, back yard astronomers will be 
    able to detect motion of the comet across the skies, 
    something a distant star would not do. ... It is when
    the Earth receives red dust from the tail of the comet, as it 
    enters the Solar System and passes between the Sun and 
    the Earth, that denial will no longer be possible. At this 
    point, however, there are scant days before the cataclysms.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible
            (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p29.htm)

In other words, only in the LAST WEEKS will the back yard astronomer,
amateurs, be able to detect motion and the general public will be able
to be lied to until that time.  Meaning that back yard astronomers,
amateurs, the public, CANNOT see it now!