Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

Greg Neill wrote:
> 
> "Nancy Lieder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> 
>>
>> I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
>> Essentially, no reflection. To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
>> Monday, August 13th in Article <[email protected]>.
> 
> Let's see.  Pluto has a magnitude of, oh, about 15.  Call that Mp.
> You say the brightness ratio of Pluto to Planet X is 81. Then
> 
>   Mx = Mp - 2.5*log(1/81)
> 
>      = 15 - 2.5*(-1.908)
> 
>      = 19.8
> 
> So by your brightness reckoning, planet X should have a magnitude
> of nearly 20.  It's 2, it's 11, it's 20.  Care to try again?


Oh, it is such a pain having to actually read ALL the characters in a
posting isn't it?

What was originally posted was:

"Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
including INFRA-RED, which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
THEY could not see it either."

   Translation: the spectrum is not typical.

"I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
Essentially, no reflection." (sic)

   Translation: the *albedo* is 81 times smaller and by your calculations
   is magnitude 20.

"Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT, but
does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf."

   Translation: It is not *really* that it isn't reflecting sunlight
   (because that is physically impossible unless PX were a black hole,
   which would present other problems), but since most of the light coming
   from it that is *visible* is self generated light, the albedo is not
   currently a significant contribution.

"Although [Planet X] at present is a magnitude 2.0, [when infra-red is
taken into consideration] astronomers should include objects up to a
magnitude 10 in their image capture."

   Translation: the light is the sum of the albedo and the self generated
   spectrum (which is not strictly black body) so the magnitude
   calculations might be a bit off.

Gee Whiz, hasn't this magnitude thing been beaten to death enough
already?  Because Nancy can't correctly do magnitude calculations
doesn't mean Planet X does not exist.  In fact, it is an orthogonal
factoid.  Either PX exists or it does not.  Either Nancy can do
magnitude calculations or not.  They are unrelated.  The correlation
coefficient is zero.  You win, your magnitude calculation ability is
superior.

Would you care to stop whining about the damn magnitude and take me up
on my "image challenge"?  Post images at the coordinates each week along
with differential images week to week.  Actual images.  No friggin red
filter, preferably B/W and it might help if as a courtesy you posted it
contrast inverted.  Raw images, not GIFs, JPEGs or other images with
compression artifacts.

The Small Kahuna