Re: Planet X: MOVED to Oct 4 Coordinates

Idon't wrote in message <fc8f94e.0210111720.754ce075@posting.google.com>
> Steve Havas wrote in message <WXtp9.510771$Ag2.19932183@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
>> Idon't wrote in message
>
>>> Hmm, I'm not an astronomer, but I think I/we recently learned that the
>>> apparent size of a point-source object is a function of it's
>>> magnitude, not it's angular size. Could you please expound on the
>>> angular size of your object compared to image pixels and how that, and
>>> it's current magnitude relate to it's apparent visual size in the
>>> images?
>>> -
>>> By the way, what IS the magnitude of your object and how did it manage
>>> to fall from 11th magnitude a year and a half ago to whatever it is
>>> now?
>>>
>>> I
>>
>> Is it not that stars are considered a point source and measured with 
>> magnitude while planets etc. can be expressed in angular size and also 
>> magnitude? This page shows the size PX would show up on
>> the images based on discussions from sci.astro some months ago.
>> http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/pierre4.htm
>
> Well, I would think it had to do with the size and distance of the
> objects in question, not the title they are given- ie: "planet" or
> "star". I think that stars are not "considered" a point source, but
> rather they ARE a point source due to their tiny angular size. A
> planet usually has a discernable cross section I think (as I said, I'm
> not an astronomer). In the case of your object, you are calling it a
> "planet", but on the images it appears much smaller than the
> surrounding stars. How does that relate to the magnitude of your
> object?

My guess is that PX would show up with the approximate actual angular size 
visible being that it is not a bright point source of light. The stars in the 
image obviously flood many more pixels being a much brighter source of light even 
though their angular size would be negligible. So if Pierre's chart is correct and I believe 
it is then PX would should about about exactly how it's showing up when compared to the 
other "larger" stars. So it's probably just large enough to be captured on the images at 
the current resolution and magnification.

I'm not an astronomer either and am not going to take a guess at the magnitude 
of this object. If there are ghosts and various shadows of PX showing up 
as ZT has said there are then that would only confuse the magnitude issue more.

> At the link, "Pierre" refers back to a speculative exercise by an
> unknown person of unknown qualifications estimating a visual size for
> an undiscovered mystery planet. I'm not sure what you hoping for from
> that exercise. Why do you consider it conclusive information?
> -
> Also, this "Pierre" you refference states on his website:"=>  Nothing
> new appears on September 21th[Havas] images." AND he points to a
> DIFFERENT speck on the Oct. 4[Havas] images than do you. He seems to
> dissagree with your claim of having imaged a new object at a specific
> location. Do you consider him a supporting reference or not?
> -
> I am still wondering about the magnitude of your possible new object.
> Any answer on that for me yet?
>
> I