Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

In Article <[email protected]> Greg Neill wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes.  With magnitude 3.7, it would be visible if it were
> a point source.  In fact, it would be even *more* easily
> spotted than an extended source of the same magnitude,
> since its light would all eminate from, well, a point.
>
>> 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.
>
> Spreading a given amount of light out over an extended
> surface makes it less easily detected.
>
>> But Planet X can't have this same priviledge extended
>> to it?
>
> No.  Because you have stated its physical size and distance,
> which specify its actual angular size as viewed from that
> distance.  No wiggle room here, it will appear as a point
> source.

As small as a point, perhaps, as are stars, but without the intensity of
light that stars do from their center.  As diffuse with “surface
brightness” as M31 but without the wide area of the sky, equivalent to
the size of the Moon as viewed from Earth, that M31 has. Pixel for pixel
the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse (being a slow smoldering
brown dwarf) as M31, but with a lower magnitude (estimated at magnitude
11 during the spring 2001 sightings) and is reflecting sunlight less
than Pluto (calculated to be 81 times less, essentially no sunlight
reflection).  People have to look out the side of their eye at M31, even
though it is a Magnitude 3.7!  Diffuse objects are harder to see!

So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
support our claims, then lets bear that in mind.  This is WHY the Zetas
have stated an observatory grade scope is required.