Re: Planet X on CNN
In article <nnfQ6.7441$WI.firstname.lastname@example.org>, tholen@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> josX writes:
>> You know what I find interesting?
>> The type of arguments you (in the larger sense) bring to bear against
>> what Nancy posts:
>> 1. Talking without end about two Magnitude numbers, where there are
>> numerous ways Magnitude can be defined
>> 2. The search for Planet-X, which lasted since 1846 to the present
>> if I am correct(?) was nonsense(!).
>On what basis do you call it "nonsense"? Pluto was discovered.
But discovered too small.
>> 3. The escape velocity exists(!).
>> 4. And now "10th" or "12th" planet?
>> What are you man, a comic-book writer?
> Non sequitur.
>> Since old days the Sun and the Moon get
>> counted, recently they are not counted anymore.
> Define "recently", and then apply Nancy's 1997 postings to the
Old habbits die slow, look at how long we got the same constellations
in the sky. This is a bit of a non-issue.
>> Merc + Venus + Earth + Mars + Jupiter + Saturn + Uranus + Neptune +
>> Pluto = 9, + P-X = 10 + Sun + Moon = 11, + P-X = 12
>> (As everybody knows i presume.)
>> Did i miss anything?
> Absolutely. For example, I have brought to bear against what Nancy
> posts the fact that an object smaller than Pluto cannot be "diffuse".
It is said to have a larger dust-cloud around it, if this cloud is
lit up by the internal planet/smoldering-dwarf, the object will appear
to be much larger.
Could that be an explanation for some of the misunderstandings? The
planet will be 4-earth diameters, no problem there, but then computing
the angular size, you would have to take into account *what* you see,
and if the planet is surrounded by a iron-oxide dust-cloud, you would
probably be looking also at that (kindof like a lit-up nebula).