Re: Planet X: MAY Coordinates

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>josX writes:
>> I say this because she has been attacked multiple times on a single
>> word; this seems not to be fair to a messenger, although it is
>> fair (well... not very fair either but anyway) towards the actual
>> source. We should try to understand what the messenger is saying
>> that the source is saying, and then we can consider.
> What we're also dealing with here are several contradictory
> statements.  The object cannot be both "smaller than Pluto" and
> "diffuse". The object cannot have "red iron dust" and "no reflected
> light". 

Yes it can, if it is far enough away it will not reflect SUNlight.

> The object cannot be both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude.

Interestingly it can if you use your head: normal point-sources exite
a very small part in the camera (or eye), so even if the source is
relatively faint, since it will only hit one receptor in the camera
(or eye) it will be detected easier than if the object covered some
area, in which case the light is spread over multiple receptors in
the camera (or eye), and hence needs to be more bright to exite these
multiple receptors in this area.

That is how an object can be mathematically magnitude 2 (because simply
all the light from the source is counted), but it registers as
magnitude 11 (because simply the light is spread out over mulitple
receptors and is therefore weaker in a single spot).

>> (Please note: I am only hypothetical here, maybe the messanger *is*
>> totally accurate, I don't know,
>
> You can know, by reading what some of us have been writing.  Take
> the above examples of contradictions for starters.

Then she is doing pretty good indeed.

Jos