Re: Planet X: the UNWISE Astronomer

James Daggett (jdaggett@gate.ent) wrote:
> 1) Nancy claims the object to be a planet yet 
>    describes it as if it were a star. Is this a planet 
>    or a brown dwarf? 

There is no human definition for a brown dwarf with LESS mass than
Jupiter, so a planet sized object, lit to the extent that it emits heat
and light, has NO definition.  Would you prefer we call it a
warm-planet?  Self-luminous-planet?  Wandering-infrared-emitting-planet?
Since it’s going to devastate our world as we know it in 14 months or
so, should we just STOP DISCUSSING it because mankind, just recently
moved up from the Flat Earth Society, has no term that exactly describes
it?  Mankind’s definition of brown dwarf freely moves around depending
upon what they happen to discover, so it’s not a firm definition, in any
case.  

> 2) In viewing planet X, it will appear two to three 
>    times that of Pluto.

There’s been math hashed to death on this, and it was resolved that it
might be 3 times larger.  However, is also has a swirl of moons
following, in its tail, so is reflecting light from these too.  Here you
go, into the swamp, as the whole concept of a swirl of moons trailing
behind this traveling planet/brown dwarf is a subject of debate.  

> 3) Not reflecting sunlight then in parenthesis 81 
>    times less than Pluto. Well is it reflecting light 
>    or not?

No.  Not at this distance.  You have no basis of comparison to say Y is,
so X should be.  Nothing reflecting our Sun’s light is at that distance,
correct?