Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

Magnus Nyborg wrote:
>> You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by
>> pointing to STARS and then claiming that the inbound
>> Planet X, ...
>
> The galaxy pointed to is _not_ a star! It is an extended
> source of light!! Composed of many billions of stars and
> planets and gaseous nebulas.

I see.  It's not a star, its many stars.  This makes it LESS THAN a
star?  Now we have MANY pin-points of light, etc.  Come one, guys,
you're losing it.

In Article <[email protected]> Greg Neill wrote:
>> M31 is not a star, so that's why it can be excused from
>> having an intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense
>> and thus registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but
>> Planet X cannot?  Why?
>
> M31 is "excused" because it is physically large enough to
> subtend a substantial arc at its distance - it really is spread
> out.

M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
arc.  Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
Pluto, as viewed from Earth?  No.  But during early discussion on the
Planet X sightings and supposed visiblity via amateur scopes, it was
stated that this TINY arc should be viewable, from a diffuse object (no
pin-point of intensity in the center as in a star), no problem.

M31 gets to have its light gathered up from everywhere, because it's
diffuse, collecting this into a bag called "surface brightness" which
gets totalled up into a magnitude that would NOT be viewable from Earth
unless over a huge surface.  But Planet X can't have this same
priviledge extended to it?  It also has "surface brightness" without a
pin-point of intensity that triggers eye and imagine equipment to
register, but can't have the same priviledge extended to it?  Come on
guys, you're becoming too obvious!