Re: Planet X on CNN
In article <BHiQ6.7463$WI.email@example.com>, tholen@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
>John Latala writes:
>>>> that won't work and it should be very visible, since aparently
>>>> `absolute'-magn. is `aparent' magnitude on 10 parsecs. hmmmmm.
>>> Not for Solar System objects.
>> What is the definition of absolute magnitude for Solar System objects?
> Apparent magnitude (visual band assumed unless otherwise specified)
> as seen from a heliocentric distance of 1 AU, a topocentric distance
> of 1 AU, and a phase angle of 0 deg.
IN OTHER WORDS: ONE AU FROM THE OBJECT BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE OBJECT.
Sorry for the shouting mister Tholen, but: if it is ABSOLUTE (*ABSOLUTE*)
magnitude (AS I SAW NANCY SAY, "can't you see the difference between
absolute and aparent magnitude ???!!!")... if it is ABSOLUTE magnitude,
which it is so let me rephrase that: it is *absolute* magnitude, and since
that is aparently normalized for solar-system objects to 1 (1!!) AU, it
will dead-simple mean that Magnitude 2.0 is VERY possible, in the very
least it is nothing out of expectations.
What is this Tholen: what is this stuff with Magnitude while you know
all along it was suposed to be normalized on 1AU. 1AU is 1/354 of the
distance to P-X (using the average Pluto-Sun distance 9 times here).
> of 1 AU, and a phase angle of 0 deg. Physically impossible, as it
> requires the observer and Sun to be in the same place, but mathematically
> Pluto, for example, has an absolute magnitude of -0.81 (essentially
> the constant term of a Fourier series that reproduces the rotational
I can hardly believe this. Is this it? Is that what absolute-Magnitude
means? (for solar-system objects?) MAN talk about your anti-climax.
What is this beckering about a thing that is no problem at all.
Am I wrong here somewhere? it seems not, and I played it all hard, on
myself too (actually only being rational at all times).
Now I am puzzled again, only for different reasons so it seems.
puzzle puzzle puzzle.....