Re: Planet X: IMO Right, Nancy Wrong, about When to Look (Long)

In Article <[email protected]> David Tholen wrote:
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Looks like IMO who claims to being schooled in science gets it wrong and
> >>>>>>>>> Nancy gets it right!
> 
> >>>>>>>> Where did Nancy allegedly get "it" right?
> 
> >>> Nancy got it right regarding that that area would not be visible (without
> >>> being washed out in the sun) in June for Cape Town and July for Madison, WI
> >>> and hence would not be readily visible until later in the summer for the N.
> >>> Hemisphere (at least August for brief viewing times).
 
> >> As I said previously, that depends on how bright the object is.  I'm
> >> still waiting for you or Nancy to tell me how bright it is supposed to
> >> be.
>
> Note:  no response.

> >>> IMO got it wrong twice
> >>> as he did not allow for DST for the sunrise in Cape Town (7:52am not 8:51am)
> 
> >> Irrelevant, as the period of visibility is independent of whether DST is
> >> used or not.
> 
> > Relevant because people could mistankely think they should be able to see
> > that area with a certain degree of darkness at a certain time when they can
> > not.
>
> The duration of the window of visibility is quite independent of whether
> DST is in use or not, thus DST is quite irrelevant, as I previously stated.

Obviously the sky is not affected by any human imposed DST but what is
affected is peoples perceptions of when the window of visibility exists.
Therefore DST is relevant if you want to find out when you can actually view
that area and not have your times wrong.

> > It is relevant in Cape Town and it is relevant in Madison because IMO's
> > calculations were wrong in both cases and therefore misleading.
>
> DST isn't going to change the window of visibility by an hour.  Did you
> ever hear the one about the woman who objected to DST because the extra
> hour of sunlight was making her flowers wilt?

Yeah, I heard that somewhere but I'm not concerned about any flowers wilting.

> >>> and alternately allowed for DST for the sunrise in Madison but did not allow
> >>> for DST correction when checking when that area (Aldebaran) rises!  Aldebaran
> >>> rises at 3:49am on July 17, 2002, not 2:55am. How on earth did you not spot
> >>> those interesting mistakes?
> 
> >> Aldebaran is irrelevant.  DST is irrelevant.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>> PX is not visible in Cape Town until mid July or there's about for a very
> >>>>>>> short time in the early hours.
> 
> >>>>>> Define "visible".  I can see Venus in broad daylight.  It's really a
> >>>>>> matter of contrast, so it's very important to know how bright the object
> >>>>>> in question is.  Now, are you or Nancy prepared to tell us how bright
> >>>>>> the object allegedly is at some relevant wavelength?
> 
> >>> I imagine the object would still be pretty dim so it would probably be best
> >>> to have a dark sky for the time being...
> 
> >> What you imagine is irrelevant, Havas.  Have you yet reconciled your
> >> own alleged observation with the magnitude limits in the CCD images?
> 
> > I've previously described what I saw at those coordinates. It was very dim
> > and I could only barely see it if I looked off to the side of my eye.
>
> Which means it couldn't have been 11th magnitude.  Translation:  Nancy
> is wrong.
>
> >>>> Note:  no response.
 
> >>>>>>> Although it becomes visible in the N. Hemisphere around 3am it only
> >>>>>>> pops up low on the horizon and for a relatively short time.
> 
> >>>>>> How long does someone need to see it?
> 
> >>>>> Just long enough to zero in on the coordinates and get a decent CCD image or
> >>>>> visual observation.
> 
> >>>> So, is there or is there not enough time to do that?
> 
> >>> Not when IMO said it was because it's washed out it the sun at those times.
 
> >> As I said previously, that depends on how bright the object is.  I'm
> >> still waiting for you or Nancy to tell me how bright it is supposed to
> >> be.  You cannot insist that one is right and the other is wrong until
> >> that information is available.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>> So if anyone is going to look for it around that time they should make
> >>>>>>> sure they consult a skymap for their area so they're not wasting their
> >>>>>>> time by going out when it is not visible.
> 
> >>>>>> That would be all the time, Havas, given that the object doesn't exist.
> 
> >>>>> Unless of course they see it.
> 
> >>>> They can't, other than in hallucinations.
 
> >>>>>>> I guess the main point is that it will be difficult for the average
> >>>>>>> person to get a decent or relatively convienent viewing window until
> >>>>>>> sometime in the fall.
> 
> >>>>>> That depends on what you consider "decent or relatively convienent"
> >>>>>> [sic].
> 
> >>>>>>> Also, I think most public observatories close before 12:00.
> 
> >>>>>> Who needs a public observatory?  Isn't it supposed to be bright enough
> >>>>>> to not require one?
> 
> >>>>> Good point. I guess for those folks who don't have their own scope.
> 
> >>>> Or for people who don't have their own eyes?
> 
> >> Note:  no response.
 
> >>>>>>>>> Sunrise is at 7:52am not 8:51am in Cape Town on June 24
> 
> >>>>>>>> Evidence please.
> 
> >>>>>>> http://mach.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl
> 
> >>>>>> That URL does nothing useful, Havas.
> 
> >>>>> You have to re-enter the information everytime.
> 
> >>>> There was no form for enterting any information.
> 
> >>>>> Try this one:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html
> >>>>> and just select Cape Town and June 24,2002.
> 
> >>>> Doesn't take into account the effects of elevation (dip of the horizon),
> >>>> and it also rounded off the longitude and latitude to the nearest
> >>>> arcminute.
> 
> >>> You should be more interested in the mistakes that IMO made than the
> >>> specific local variations of when the sun rises in Cape Town.
> 
> >> DST is irrelevant.  Aldebaran is irrelevant.  The duration of  visibility
> >> is what is relevant.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> Unless of course one lives in a valley so deep the sun never rises...
 
> >> The sky still gets bright.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Nancy allegedly got
> >>>>>> "right".
> 
> >>>> Note:  no response.
> 
> >>> See top of post.
> 
> >> See my response there.
>