Planet X: MAY Coordinates
Nancy Lieder
the inbounc Planet X are now available:
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
RA 4.99823 Dec 16.37962 on May 23, 2001
RA 5.00761 Dec 16.39765 on May 19, 2001
RA 5.09342 Dec 16.40278 on May 5, 2001
ZetaTalk (dated May 1, 2001)
Greg Neill
news:3AF00D31...@zetatalk.com...
I find it interesting that the closer this fantasy planet gets,
the harder it seems to be to see it.
Mark Folsom
What's its magnitude?
Mark Folsom
Michael L. Cunningham
Please define "OBSERVATORY level scope". Would you consider my
10 inch scope with CCD camera big enough?
If you refuse to view Hale-Bopp through a similar size scope a few
years ago, how are you getting these coordinates? What magnitude and
size (in arc seconds) is the famous non-existent planet at now?
--
Michael L. Cunningham
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Mika Yrjola
> Updated coordiantes where an OBSERVATORY level scope can find and view
> the inbounc Planet X are now available:
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
What is the definition of OBSERVATORY level scope?
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Linux, Amiga, Telecommunications, Oldfield, Vangelis I
I Seti@Home, Steady relationship, more at http://www.lut.fi/%7emyrjola/ I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Greg Neill
news:m3n18vn...@renttu.lnet.lut.fi...
> Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> writes:
>
> > Updated coordiantes where an OBSERVATORY level scope can find and view
> > the inbounc Planet X are now available:
> > (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
>
> What is the definition of OBSERVATORY level scope?
Most probably: Bigger than anything that cannot find it.
Sam Wormley
What is the source of these coordinates with an accuracy
(or should I say resolution) of 36 thousanths of an arcsecond?
Who determined these coordinates and what Epoch are they in?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob May
You are in my killfile. Your message isn't being read but rather this
message is an automatic reply from my EMail program indicating that you are
an unwanted person on this newsgroup or email sender. Don't post again.
--
Bob May
Remember that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you
think you told them to do.
Bob May
Here's the past numbers that are on her website and I dare anybody to
predict where the supposed planet is going. Since the values are small and
the time is short, a linear plot of the positions will indicate how much all
this is BS.
RA 4.99823 Dec 16.37962 on May 23, 2001
RA 5.00761 Dec 16.39765 on May 19, 2001
RA 5.09342 Dec 16.40278 on May 5, 2001
RA 5.138421 Dec 16.419789 on April 30, 2001
RA 5.143675 Dec 16.421739 on April 15, 2001
RA 5.151245 Dec 16.55743 on April 1, 2001
RA 5.16549 Dec 16.55847 on March 17, 2001
RA 5.16653 Dec 16.56912 on March 1, 2001
RA 5.16659 Dec 16.57897 on February 22, 2001
RA 5.16784 Dec 16.57943 on February 15, 2001
RA 5.47 Dec 19.54 on September 1, 2000
RA 6.23 Dec 24.12 on May 1, 2000
RA 6.24 Dec 23.45 on January 1, 2000
RA 6.32 Dec 21.57 on January 1, 1999
RA 6.24 Dec 19.16 on December 1, 1997
Just follow the path from Feb. 15, 2001 and when you are done laughing, go
add in the results for the time previous to that.
Steve Holzworth
Nah, just bigger than that which anyone would have, except those involved
in the great conspiracy to surpress Planet X warnings, who wouldn't tell
you anyway :-).
--
Steve Holzworth "Do not attribute to poor spelling
s...@unx.sas.com That which is actually poor typing..."
Senior Systems Developer - me
SAS Institute - Open Systems R&D VMS/MAC/UNIX
Cary, N.C.
Bill Foley
What is an inbounc? The opposite of an outbounc??
--
Bill Foley
P.S. Ignore the reply-to address, it is to foil spammers.
and remove the plugh. from the "from" address, it, too, is to
foil spammers.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Updated coordiantes where an OBSERVATORY level scope can find and view
> the inbounc Planet X are now available:
>
> RA 4.99823 Dec 16.37962 on May 23, 2001
> RA 5.00761 Dec 16.39765 on May 19, 2001
> RA 5.09342 Dec 16.40278 on May 5, 2001
Someone who actually knew what they were talking about wouldn't post
such insufficient information.
For example, are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
or something else?
Are the positions geocentric or topocentric to some particular
location?
Are the times Coordinated Universal Time, Terrestrial Time,
Barycentric Dynamical Time, or for some particular time zone?
Should one assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
And you do realize that the positions do not fit any orbit, do you?
Bill Nelson
: Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> writes:
:> Updated coordiantes where an OBSERVATORY level scope can find and view
:> the inbounc Planet X are now available:
:> (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
: What is the definition of OBSERVATORY level scope?
Only a scope that can see the object. That leaves out even the 36" and
larger amateur telescopes - as none of them have located this object in
Nancy's head.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Mark Folsom
>
> > Updated coordiantes where an OBSERVATORY level scope can find and view
> > the inbounc Planet X are now available:
> > (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm)
>
> What is the definition of OBSERVATORY level scope?
Yeah, Pluto was discovered with a 13" and I've got an 11"---shouldn't I be
able to see Planet X if it's closer than Pluto?
Mark Folsom
tho...@antispam.ham
> Yeah, Pluto was discovered with a 13" and I've got an 11"---shouldn't I be
> able to see Planet X if it's closer than Pluto?
Depends on size and albedo.
And most importantly, reality.
Mark Folsom
news:abxI6.1113$n81.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Ah, another one of those rigid sticklers for reality---when are you ever
going to learn? Truly enlightened people have let go of that rigid western
patriarchal paradigm so as to truly open their minds to alternate planes of
existence. You can join them...
Mark Folsom
Mike Byrne
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:abxI6.1113$n81.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
>
> > Yeah, Pluto was discovered with a 13" and I've got an 11"---shouldn't I
be
> > able to see Planet X if it's closer than Pluto?
Remeber that Pluto was discovered photographically. I doubt that you could
see it through an EP with the 13". Unless of course, there was an arrow
pointing to it.
-Mike
Bill Foley
Hi,
Pluto required aperture AND photography because its position was not
then known. After the position was known, it has been seen in scopes
considerably smaller than 13". Planet X only requires imagination and
faith, scope not necessary. One sort of faith led to Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Another sort of faith led to Jonesville. Pick
your faiths carefully, what you don't know can kill you.
Magnus Nyborg
"Mike Byrne" <m.b...@mybc.com> wrote in message
news:3af2c...@139.142.118.11...
It is simple in my 12" on a dark night - but then I know where and what to
look for...
Planet-X should however be much brighter than Pluto, even given the most
pessimistic calculations possible, and should be spotted with a pair of
binoculars...
Clear Skies,
Magnus
> -Mike
>
>
john Latala
> Planet-X should however be much brighter than Pluto, even given the most
> pessimistic calculations possible, and should be spotted with a pair of
> binoculars...
I know it's probably just an oversight on your part ... slip of the
keyboard type of thing ... but I'm assuming you meant OBSERVATORY grade
binoculars! :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Mike Byrne
Can Pluto be seen in Mag 5 skies with an 8"?
-Mike
"Magnus Nyborg" wrote:
.
>
> It is simple in my 12" on a dark night - but then I know where and what to
> look for...
>
>
> Clear Skies,
> Magnus
Magnus Nyborg
"john Latala" <jrla...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.101050...@shell.golden.net...
Actually, no - copied from Zeta's site
"The operator described the object as diffuse and of approximate magnitude
11"
...that would require a pair of 10x50 binos, more or less, to be able to
detect. Of course, bigger _is_ better.
Clear Skies,
Magnus
ps: Since Zeta's don't care about being more specific, I don't care
either... ds
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Yeah, Pluto was discovered with a 13" and I've got an 11"---shouldn't I
>>> be able to see Planet X if it's closer than Pluto?
>> Depends on size and albedo.
>>
>> And most importantly, reality.
> Ah, another one of those rigid sticklers for reality---when are you ever
> going to learn? Truly enlightened people have let go of that rigid western
> patriarchal paradigm so as to truly open their minds to alternate planes of
> existence. You can join them...
I'd rather not.
Magnus Nyborg
> Magus,
> Can Pluto be seen in Mag 5 skies with an 8"?
> -Mike
Can?... Yes!
Will?...Depends!
Given that there are big variations in the construction of the scope (f ex
refractor or SCT), quality of optics, seeing, transparency, light-pollution,
sensitivity in the observers eye etc, it is of course impossible to _state_
that it will be seen...
But there are many observers reporting Pluto having been seen in an 8":er,
and for good reasons. Pluto is now about mag 14, and an 8":er can detect
down to about mag 15.5 if everything is good and the observer exceptionally
sensitive. More common is detection down to about mag 14.5, but still enough
to detect Pluto.
One of the most limiting factors is however the light-pollution, mainly for
two reasons.
1. It reduces the eye's darksensitivity. Hiding the eye for 30-45 minutes
before observations will help, but make sure the eye is not exposed to the
"bright" mag 5 sky :o) even for a few seconds, that's enough to wreck your
dark adapted eye!
2. It minimises contrast between background and object. Higher
magnifications can help here, by darkening the sky below the detectionlevel
of the eye (not by increasing contrast that is sometimes falsely claimed).
Also, the eye is not linear in response, and finding the right magnification
can help in the detection.
A mag 5 sky implies a 1 magnitude lessening of detection with the unaided
eye, and if extrapolated, will put an 8":er at around mag 13.5, below that
of Pluto. It will definitively be difficult to detect it, but not
impossible...
Believable claims of detecting Pluto range down to 5" refractors, and I have
read a report of detection with a questar 3.5". At least I put some
confidence in the reports of detection with 5":ers (usually refractors),
given a dark night it is definitively possible.
On a night with steady seeing, yank your scope up to about 250-300x and try
!!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Mark Folsom
I saw the plates at the Lowell Observatory just a few weeks ago. They had
arrows pointing to Pluto. You mean there aren't arrows pointing to all the
planets?
Mark Folsom
Chosp
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:tf6f97b...@corp.supernews.com...
> I saw the plates at the Lowell Observatory just a few weeks ago. They had
> arrows pointing to Pluto. You mean there aren't arrows pointing to all
the
> planets?
>
Nope. Only Pluto.
Nancy Lieder
> What's its magnitude?
In Article <3AF01B79...@earthlink.net> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> If you refuse to view Hale-Bopp through a similar size
> scope a few years ago, how are you getting these
> coordinates? What magnitude and size (in arc seconds)
> is the famous non-existent planet at now?
In Article <3AF0362A...@cnde.iastate.edu> Sam Wormley wrote:
> What is the source of these coordinates with an accuracy
> (or should I say resolution) of 36 thousanths of an arcsecond?
> Who determined these coordinates and what Epoch are they in?
The 3 individuals reported sighting Planet X used coordinates given by
the Zetas (see Message <3AD3859B...@zetatalk.com> Planet X SIGHTED
by 3 Observatories!), so unless you're calling these folks liars, its
NOT a non-existent planet. The Zetas are advising setting equipment for
Magnitude 10 or a higher number, and filtering FOR red (not filtering
red out). Its size is smaller than Pluto at present, and it is NOT
reflecting sunlight as Pluto is, at present. This is my understanding.
I don't know what Epoch is. Is this refering to what part of the Earth
a person is viewing from? Look around these coordinates, as the folks
sighting Planet X reported they had to looks close to the coordinates at
times, as reported in that SIGHTED posting referenced above.
I don't own a scope, have never peeked into one, and would not know
which end to look through, frankly. I put the concepts the Zetas give
to me into words. This is not hearing voices in my head, as some who
would like this message debunked term it, as it is not a SOUND based
message. It's a telepathic concept, which I must translate into words
or diagrams. In the case of coordinates, I use a SkyMap image, the one
at the Path page (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm) and get
the notion that the path is moving here or there, and then get more
precise. It takes a long time for me to get complicated concepts down,
and in that the problem is ME, as if I'm not oriented I can't grasp the
concept, and if I don't grasp it correctly I certainly can't communicate
it.
An example of the stuggle, and the communication problems, is when a
friend was trying to help me get a diagram of the passage, (now at pages
called 32 Degree Angle http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03g.htm and
Point of Passage http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03y.htm). I was
putting the concept into words, and Jack kept coming back for more info,
and after a couple weeks of this I decided to draw up in PC Paintbrush
the concept that the Zetas were giving me. I had Planet X coming DOWN
from above the ecliptic, and the planets going round the sun in a
clockwise motion. Well, Zeta Reticuli is on the Orion side of the
ecliptic, and apparently the Zetas though of that as UP, a point I was
missing.
So the communication is not perfect, but it has a good track record. See
the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC fans maintain in Troubled Times
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm) for some examples. Part
of the problem with the Hale-Bopp episode was that I, Nancy, had it in
my head that the object being pointed to was a nova long after the Zetas
were stating that a real comet was not being pointed to. If one reads
the actual words of the Zetas, they are on target, but I was personally
behind the curve. This is why putting the ZetaTalk concepts into Greek,
or math (I don't speak math either), is something I don't attempt. But
being behind the curve doesn't prevent the ZetaTalk message from being
correct, as in all ZetaTalk the Zetas must be satisfied with the words I
come up with to describe the concept they are relaying. Read THEIR
words, ZetaTalk, rather than talk to Nancy, for best results.
An example of Nancy being behind the curve, but the concept being
relayed correctly, is my understanding of WHY the Earth stops its
rotation, during the passage, with the Atlantic facing the Sun. I just
reported this in 1995, and some physics guy on the East Coast pointed
out to dumb me that the part of the crust becoming the new poles would
be dependent upon WHAT part of the Earth faces the Sun when rotation
stops. Jaw dropped (he was quite right!) I went for clarification and
the info on the magnetic nature of the lava in the Atlantic rifts was
added to the ZetaTalk site. It gets gripped by Planet X as it passes
between the Earth and the Sun. So here I relayed the concept, the
result, without understanding the mechanics, but relayed the concept
correctly.
Nancy Lieder
> Interesting path that this thing is taking!
> Here's the past numbers that are on her website and
> I dare anybody to predict where the supposed planet is
> going. Since the values are small and the time is short,
> a linear plot of the positions will indicate how much all
> this is BS.
You're presuming man's understanding of orbits and comet behavior is
correct for all instances. Man is never wrong? The earth is not flat?
Here's what the Zetas have had to say about the the approach.
When at a distance, ... [Planeet X] sweeps before this
energy field as the field passes, moving slightly at these
times to the left, in the same counterclockwise manner
that the other planets do. As [Planet X] approaches, its
reaction to the bulk of the energy field is longer lasting
and begins to produce a retrograde orbit for its approach
to the Sun. Thus, during 1995 through 1998, [Planet X]
will drift left and up toward the elliptic, aligning itself in
the same manner as the planets to the Sun's sweeping arm,
but due to its mobility out in space, its distance from the
Sun, it develops a retrograde orbit and begins to move to
the right, in the manner the ancients recorded.
ZetaTalk in Retrograde Orbit
(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s85.htm)
All comets tracked do not have a mass sufficient to
trigger a strong repulsion force in the planets they pass or
the Sun, and thus the humans ephemeris assume the only
elements to consider are the path and the speed. ...
[Planet X] still comes on, full bore, but veers to the side
a bit as it approaches. As it is still picking up speed, the
speed compensates for the repulsion, and the 12th Planet
finds in the last few months that it can now come closer
to the Sun, the repulsion being balanced by the speed.
Thus, when it gets to its maximum speed, entering your
Solar System, it bends in toward your Sun, after having
veered outward slightly, so that the angle is approximately
32 degrees.
ZetaTalk in 32 Degree Angle
(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s31.htm)
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
> or something else? Are the positions geocentric or
> topocentric to some particular location?
> Are the times Coordinated Universal Time,
> Terrestrial Time, Barycentric Dynamical Time,
> or for some particular time zone? Should one
> assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
> And you do realize that the positions do not fit any
> orbit, do you?
If folks can, on a clear night and given they are in a part of the word
where the coordinates are visible, SEE Planet X at their local
observatory, then does it matter? Please note that they had to adjust
slightly to the coordinates. From the SIGHTED posting, now at
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00686.htm, I quote:
ON APR 1, 2001: Lowel
So I tried focusing on the periphery of the viewable area
while directing my attention to the middle. Lo and behold,
there appeared a faint blip not too far off center. ....
The operator described the object as diffuse and of
approximate magnitude 11. The coordinates
(in degree/minute/second format), with a margin of error
according to the operator of +/- 20 seconds (about .006
degrees) RA and +/- 10 seconds (about .003 degrees) Dec
ON APR 8, 2001: Gordon Macmillan
Near the center I see nothing that I think looks like the
[Planet X] (just a couple stars) but at the very top right
corner if I moved my head I could see what
appeared to be a darkish, diffuse, round spot, fairly large.
Magnus Nyborg
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Magnus Nyborg
described by Newton ?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Magnus Nyborg
coordinates are given ? What type of scopes can be excluded as rendering
this impossible ?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Mike Byrne
seen either of them through a telescope. Has Hubble imaged the arrow?
-Mike
tho...@antispam.ham
> You're presuming man's understanding of orbits and comet behavior is
> correct for all instances.
You're presuming that your understanding of orbits is correct for all
instances. Let me know when you've succeeded in landing a spacecraft
on an asteroid.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Its size is smaller than Pluto at present,
And Planet X will magically grow at some later time?
> and it is NOT reflecting sunlight as Pluto is, at present.
So it's made of a material with zero albedo? That means it must
absorb ALL radiation that falls on it. You don't see a problem
with thermal equilibrium ehre?
> This is my understanding.
Your understanding is badly flawed.
> I don't know what Epoch is.
So how can you compute a position, given that you don't know what
you're talking about?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
>> or something else? Are the positions geocentric or
>> topocentric to some particular location?
>> Are the times Coordinated Universal Time,
>> Terrestrial Time, Barycentric Dynamical Time,
>> or for some particular time zone? Should one
>> assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
>> And you do realize that the positions do not fit any
>> orbit, do you?
> If folks can, on a clear night and given they are in a part of the word
> where the coordinates are visible, SEE Planet X at their local
> observatory, then does it matter?
Yes, it does matter, because nobody credible can see your object.
tho...@antispam.ham
> What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
Retrograde orbits, such as for comet Halley, are quite independent of
observation point. They are dependent on an adopted reference frame,
which is usually the ecliptic, angular momentum vectors on the south
side being termed retrograde.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Are their any examples of planetary orbits breaking the orbital "laws" as
> described by Newton ?
The perihelion advance of Mercury requires relativity to explain fully.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Can a ccd image miss the detection of a magnitude 11 starlike object if
> coordinates are given ?
Sure, if the field of view is smaller than the positional error, or if
the epoch is wrongly assumed. For example, if a position is given as
B1950 but the operator points at the corresponding J2000 position, you'll
miss by as much as 0.7 degrees (50 years of precession).
Magnus Nyborg
> The arrow pointing to Pluto is brighter than Pluto, although I have never
> seen either of them through a telescope. Has Hubble imaged the arrow?
> -Mike
Can you provide the ephemeris of the arrow, please, I want to check it out.
Epoch 2000, thank you very much !!!
What magnitude is the arrow ? Can it be observed naked-eye with an
observatory level telescope ?
;o)
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Magnus Nyborg
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:X_ZI6.1358$n81.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
I read in a post about a supposed planet that would "stop and linger before
assuming a two year long retograde orbit"
How can a planet go from a forward orbit, linger, and then turn into a
retograde orbit for two years ?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
>
Magnus Nyborg
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:%%ZI6.1359$n81.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
But then relativity only improves the predictions from Newtonian "laws". Are
there even one example where the predictions are wildly off with respect to
observations ?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
>
Magnus Nyborg
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:23_I6.1362$n81.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Soo, basically you are saying that with several thousands of amateurs out in
the world ownind a ccd camera, the likelyhood that they would not detect
this object is what ? zero ??
Clear Skies,
Magnus
>
JTRIV
improve significantly. Unfortunately those who hear the voices are unlikely to
actually buy and learn to use a ccd camera or even a telescope. For some odd
reason they lack the interest to look. (isn't that strange?) This keeps the
odds very close to zero, but not quite zero.
;-)
Jim
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
>> Retrograde orbits, such as for comet Halley, are quite independent of
>> observation point. They are dependent on an adopted reference frame,
>> which is usually the ecliptic, angular momentum vectors on the south
>> side being termed retrograde.
> I read in a post about a supposed planet that would "stop and linger before
> assuming a two year long retograde orbit"
Don't believe everything you read.
> How can a planet go from a forward orbit, linger, and then turn into a
> retograde orbit for two years ?
Active propulsion. Don't know of any planets that have that.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Are their any examples of planetary orbits breaking the orbital "laws"
>>> as described by Newton ?
>> The perihelion advance of Mercury requires relativity to explain fully.
> But then relativity only improves the predictions from Newtonian "laws".
So? It still breaks the orbital laws as described by Newton, which is
what you asked about.
> Are there even one example where the predictions are wildly off with
> respect to observations ?
Depends on your definition of "wildly off". Some might argue that
Mercury's perihelion advance qualifies.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Can a ccd image miss the detection of a magnitude 11 starlike object if
>>> coordinates are given ?
>> Sure, if the field of view is smaller than the positional error, or if
>> the epoch is wrongly assumed. For example, if a position is given as
>> B1950 but the operator points at the corresponding J2000 position, you'll
>> miss by as much as 0.7 degrees (50 years of precession).
> Soo, basically you are saying that with several thousands of amateurs out in
> the world ownind a ccd camera, the likelyhood that they would not detect
> this object is what ? zero ??
You can't detect what doesn't exist.
But if a thousand or even ten thousand people all looked at a J2000
position that was really given in the B1950 reference frame, all with
a too small field of view to accommodate a 0.7 degree error would
miss it.
Magnus Nyborg
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:a5%I6.1372$n81.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Assuming both possibilities where examined, if it would not be detected, it
is becuase it only exists in the mindset of someone, hmmm, delusional !?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Chosp
> The arrow pointing to Pluto is brighter than Pluto, although I have never
> seen either of them through a telescope. Has Hubble imaged the arrow?
> -Mike
>
Several times.
I believe the spectroscopy and a close-up detail shot has revealed it to be
made of corrugated aluminum panels riveted together and painted with
titanium dioxide white. The paint is flaking - revealing the underlying
aluminum surface.
It can be seen that there is a small sign in one corner but at the distance
of Pluto the actual lettering can't be made out.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Can a ccd image miss the detection of a magnitude 11 starlike object
>>>>> if coordinates are given ?
>>>> Sure, if the field of view is smaller than the positional error, or if
>>>> the epoch is wrongly assumed. For example, if a position is given as
>>>> B1950 but the operator points at the corresponding J2000 position,
>>>> you'll miss by as much as 0.7 degrees (50 years of precession).
>>> Soo, basically you are saying that with several thousands of amateurs
>>> out in the world ownind a ccd camera, the likelyhood that they would
>>> not detect this object is what ? zero ??
>> You can't detect what doesn't exist.
>>
>> But if a thousand or even ten thousand people all looked at a J2000
>> position that was really given in the B1950 reference frame, all with
>> a too small field of view to accommodate a 0.7 degree error would
>> miss it.
> Assuming both possibilities where examined,
What do you mean by "both"? Those are just two of an infinite number
of possibilities. Some star catalogs, for example, have coordinates in
B1900, or even B1875.
> if it would not be detected, it is becuase it only exists in the mindset
> of someone, hmmm, delusional !?
In this case, yes.
Mike Byrne
Hmmmm...I've only seen the arrow in photographs. I wonder if it's some sort
of hoax? By now Keck, CFHT, Hubble, and others should have imaged the arrow
in true color. Maybe someone should start a web site about the "arrow that
points to Pluto hoax"? :))
-Mike
"Magnus Nyborg":
>
> "Mike Byrne" :
David W Knisely
> What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
>
planet in a more distant orbit (same reason telephone poles seem to be
moving backward relative to more distant objects when you are driving a
car down the road).
--
David Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.4w.com/pac
Hyde Memorial Observatory:
http://www.blackstarpress.com/arin/hyde
***********************************************
* Attend the 8th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 14-20, 2001 http://www.4w.com/nsp *
***********************************************
tho...@antispam.ham
>> What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
> It is caused by the motion of the Earth, in a sense as it "passes" a
> planet in a more distant orbit (same reason telephone poles seem to be
> moving backward relative to more distant objects when you are driving a
> car down the road).
That's "retrograde motion". Not quite the same things as a retrograde
orbit, such as comet Halley's.
Brian Tung
> > What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
>
> It is caused by the motion of the Earth, in a sense as it "passes" a
> planet in a more distant orbit (same reason telephone poles seem to be
> moving backward relative to more distant objects when you are driving a
> car down the road).
Hi David. What you describe is retrograde motion, not a retrograde
orbit. From the context, it's difficult for me to tell which one the
poster "really" wanted to hear about, since a retrograde orbit (one that
is clockwise as seen from high "above"--that is, north of--the plane of
the solar system) isn't dependent on where you observe it from.
I suspect you answered the right question, but I thought the possible
terminology confusion was worth pointing out.
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
PalmAtlas Home at http://astro.isi.edu/palmatlas/
Magnus Nyborg
"Brian Tung" <br...@zot.isi.edu> wrote in message
news:9d34h2$4il$1...@zot.isi.edu...
> David W Knisely wrote:
> > > What causes retograde orbits as observed from the planet Earth ?
> >
> > It is caused by the motion of the Earth, in a sense as it "passes" a
> > planet in a more distant orbit (same reason telephone poles seem to be
> > moving backward relative to more distant objects when you are driving a
> > car down the road).
>
> Hi David. What you describe is retrograde motion, not a retrograde
> orbit. From the context, it's difficult for me to tell which one the
> poster "really" wanted to hear about, since a retrograde orbit (one that
> is clockwise as seen from high "above"--that is, north of--the plane of
> the solar system) isn't dependent on where you observe it from.
>
> I suspect you answered the right question, but I thought the possible
> terminology confusion was worth pointing out.
...just pointing out, that N***y has a planet coming in with a forward
"orbit", just to have it linger and turn into a retograde "orbit"...
Clear Skies,
Magnus
David W Knisely
> Hi David. What you describe is retrograde motion, not a retrograde
> orbit. From the context, it's difficult for me to tell which one the
> poster "really" wanted to hear about, since a retrograde orbit (one that
> is clockwise as seen from high "above"--that is, north of--the plane of
> the solar system) isn't dependent on where you observe it from.
>
> I suspect you answered the right question, but I thought the possible
> terminology confusion was worth pointing out.
>
Yup, I was trying to guess what that guy really wanted (other than maybe
attention), so when he said "as observed from the planet Earth", I
assumed he meant an apparent orbit rather than the heliocentric one. I
am starting to hate this thread, so maybe I sould just add it to the
rather growing list of kill-filed ones. Clear skies to you.
David W Knisely
> That's "retrograde motion". Not quite the same things as a retrograde
> orbit, such as comet Halley's.
>
*as observed from the planet Earth*?", and *not* as observed from the
coordinate frame of a heliocentric orbit. He is obviously confused a
little about a true retrograde orbit verses retrograde motion (an
apparent "retrograde" orbit). Some people do use geocentric orbits to
"hype-up" their alleged discoveries about so-called "companion" bodies
to Earth (like a certain asteroid which one group repeatedly hyped as
being a terrestrial companion). It may be useful to do this in some
cases, but for general work, I prefer a Heliocentric approach. Clear
skies to you.
Magnus Nyborg
"David W Knisely" <ka0...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:3AF5995C...@navix.net...
> Hi there. YOu posted:
> > Hi David. What you describe is retrograde motion, not a retrograde
> > orbit. From the context, it's difficult for me to tell which one the
> > poster "really" wanted to hear about, since a retrograde orbit (one that
> > is clockwise as seen from high "above"--that is, north of--the plane of
> > the solar system) isn't dependent on where you observe it from.
> >
> > I suspect you answered the right question, but I thought the possible
> > terminology confusion was worth pointing out.
> >
>
> Yup, I was trying to guess what that guy really wanted (other than maybe
> attention), so when he said "as observed from the planet Earth", I
> assumed he meant an apparent orbit rather than the heliocentric one. I
> am starting to hate this thread, so maybe I sould just add it to the
> rather growing list of kill-filed ones. Clear skies to you.
...agsain, I was asking out of Nancy's statement, that was about "retograde
orbit as observed from Earth..." - and the question was rethoric...
Clear Skies,
Magnus
tho...@antispam.ham
>> That's "retrograde motion". Not quite the same thing as a retrograde
>> orbit, such as comet Halley's.
> NO,
On the contrary, what you described is indeed retrograde motion.
> what the poster actually asked was, "What causes retrograde orbits
> *as observed from the planet Earth*?",
I'm well aware of what the poster actually asked, as you can see from
my response to him. Note that he specifically asked about retrograde
*orbits*, not retrograde motion. You described retrograde motion.
> and *not* as observed from the coordinate frame of a heliocentric
> orbit.
As I noted in my response to that poster, a retrograde orbit is
independent of the observer's position. It depends on an adopted
reference frame.
> He is obviously confused a little about a true retrograde orbit
> verses retrograde motion (an apparent "retrograde" orbit).
Regardless of whether he is confused or not, you described "retrograde
motion", therefore to begin your reply to me with "NO" is incorrect.
> Some people do use geocentric orbits to "hype-up" their alleged
> discoveries about so-called "companion" bodies to Earth (like a
> certain asteroid which one group repeatedly hyped as being a
> terrestrial companion).
Irrelevant to the question at hand.
> It may be useful to do this in some cases, but for general work,
> I prefer a Heliocentric approach.
We're dealing with a specific question here, not general work.
tho...@antispam.ham
> ....agsain, I was asking out of Nancy's statement, that was about
> "retograde orbit as observed from Earth..."
But Nancy doesn't know what she's talking about.
> - and the question was rethoric...
Then why bother?
Bob May
system. Where is Orion?
--
Bob May
Remember that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you
think you told them to do.
Bob May
about.
Bob May
to #9, you still have planets #10 through to #13 as having problems meeting
Newton's laws. #12, of which this discussion is about has some real
problems with Newton's laws.
Steve Havas
say no one credible can see this object so I guess your talking to me in a
broad sense. What is credibility? The dictionary says it's the quality or
power of inspiring belief. Am I credible... ? Well... I guess that's not for
me to decide or worry about. Am I trying to pull a fast one to try to keep
some seemingly incredibly elaborate hoax going? I sure hope not as I do not
feel that that is my nature.
Who am I then? Just some poster on the internet? I'm not an astronomer. I do
have a diploma in Mechanical Engineering Technology and I currently work
doing investor relations for public companies for what that is worth. In the
end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my local observatory, got the
operator to move the telescope to those zeta's coordinates (with some
difficulty) and reported what I saw. I have nothing to gain personally by
making such a report except perhaps ridicule or insults. What I saw is what
I saw and there is nothing that I can do to prove that to anyone here by
some words that I type up on this message board. I'm just writing on behalf
of myself because I know there are those here who take this business to
heart and if this gives them a better sense of what is credible one way or
the other then all the better. So, you tell me what is credible?
Regards,
Steve
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:2XZI6.1355$n81.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>
> >> are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
> >> or something else? Are the positions geocentric or
> >> topocentric to some particular location?
> >> Are the times Coordinated Universal Time,
> >> Terrestrial Time, Barycentric Dynamical Time,
> >> or for some particular time zone? Should one
> >> assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
> >> And you do realize that the positions do not fit any
> >> orbit, do you?
>
> > If folks can, on a clear night and given they are in a part of the word
> > where the coordinates are visible, SEE Planet X at their local
> > observatory, then does it matter?
>
> Yes, it does matter, because nobody credible can see your object.
>
JRStern
<fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>Ah, another one of those rigid sticklers for reality---when are you ever
>going to learn? Truly enlightened people have let go of that rigid western
>patriarchal paradigm so as to truly open their minds to alternate planes of
>existence. You can join them...
Would that be planet XX?
J.
Greg Neill
news:xXlJ6.99$qa5.993@read1...
So were the coordinates you used those of mean of date,
apparent, J2000, B1950 or something else? If you don't
know, how can know what you were looking at?
JTRIV
This is a NG of amateur astronomers. Having read your observing report and the
vagueness of it no one is convinced. Most of the report seemed to be about the
strange behavior of the Observatory staff. This I'm sure would convince the
conspiracy theory gang, but not people into astronomy. Your actual observing
report stated you saw " a darkish, diffuse, round spot, fairly large" and had to
move your head to see it on the edge of the field. No insult intended but this
isn't a credible sighting.
Think about this Steve. The Observatory you were at has a .5 meter (just under
20 inch) telescope. There are a number of people in this NG who have scopes that
large and many more with somewhat smaller scopes combined with CCD camera's that
could easily see what you saw. This is also a group that would make the effort
to see such an object. No one has been able to see anything.
At magnitude 11 pretty much everyone in the NG would be able to see it. My 8"
inch is capable of seeing mag 11 diffuse galaxies. The rhetoric about
Observatory level scope is just to explain the lack of sightings. Amateurs can't
see it and all the Observatories are in on the conspiracy. Yeah, right.
If you truly have an interest, learn about astronomy and get a scope. You can
enjoy astronomy and you will see why the folks here found this somewhat amusing
at first and really irritating as it dragged on and on.
Jim
john Latala
> In the end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my local
> observatory, got the operator to move the telescope to those zeta's
> coordinates (with some difficulty) and reported what I saw.
I find that hard to believe because as far as I know the given information
isn't enough so the operator of the telescope would know where to point
it?
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
David W Knisely
> Note that he specifically asked about retrograde
> *orbits*, not retrograde motion. You described retrograde motion.
I am perfectly well aware that what I described was retrograde motion.
However, the poster asked about an "..orbits as seen from the planet
Earth". The orbital paths shown from the Earth are apparent ones seen
from the Earth.
more stuff from Tholen....
> > He is obviously confused a little about a true retrograde orbit
> > verses retrograde motion (an apparent "retrograde" orbit).
>
> Regardless of whether he is confused or not, you described "retrograde
> motion", therefore to begin your reply to me with "NO" is incorrect.
>
(sigh...) Ok, whatever (guess I shouldn't argue with someone who argues
with the N***y troll).
Steve Havas
I never said I knew what I was looking at, I just stated what I saw.
Steve
Greg Neill <gnei...@MOVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:hZmJ6.25516$TW.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Steve Havas
had 18" telescopes and the apparent ease of which any dim, diffuse magnitude
11 object can be seen. You must have a close working relationship with
everyone here to know that no one has seen anything at those coordinates -
that's great... I wish there was that kind of camaraderie in my field of
work! Surely I was mistaken - it was probably just a bug that was on the
eyepiece.
I'm glad the lack of credibility of my sighting has allowed you to put this
amusing and tiresome subject to rest. Maybe I will buy a scope so I can
enjoy the sights of the stars and galaxies and wonders on clear dark nights.
Then maybe I will see things from everyones here view and can quit worrying
about pesky rogue planets and such!
Clear Skies!
Steve
JTRIV <JT...@home.com> wrote in message news:3AF6019C...@home.com...
Steve Havas
Steve
john Latala <jrla...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.101050...@shell.golden.net...
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Nancy Lieder writes:
>>>> are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
>>>> or something else? Are the positions geocentric or
>>>> topocentric to some particular location?
>>>> Are the times Coordinated Universal Time,
>>>> Terrestrial Time, Barycentric Dynamical Time,
>>>> or for some particular time zone? Should one
>>>> assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
>>>> And you do realize that the positions do not fit any
>>>> orbit, do you?
>>> If folks can, on a clear night and given they are in a part of the word
>>> where the coordinates are visible, SEE Planet X at their local
>>> observatory, then does it matter?
>> Yes, it does matter, because nobody credible can see your object.
> I was the one who had the sighting at the Gordon Macmillan Observatory.
> You say no one credible can see this object
The key word here is "this". No one credible can see Nancy's object.
That's because it doesn't exist.
> so I guess your talking to me in a broad sense. What is credibility?
The power to convince others of the veracity of a claim.
> The dictionary says it's the quality or power of inspiring belief.
> Am I credible... ?
Not if you claim that you saw Nancy's object.
> Well... I guess that's not for me to decide or worry about. Am I trying
> to pull a fast one to try to keep some seemingly incredibly elaborate
> hoax going?
"Only your hairdresser knows for sure."
> I sure hope not as I do not feel that that is my nature.
I'm open to other explanations for what you claim to have seen; Nancy's
object it was not. You could have seen an asteroid, for example.
> Who am I then? Just some poster on the internet?
From my perspective, yes.
> I'm not an astronomer. I do have a diploma in Mechanical Engineering
> Technology and I currently work doing investor relations for public
> companies for what that is worth.
I know a lot of people who have no intent to perpetuate a hoax that see
things in the sky that they do not understand. I've watched people
interpret Perseid meteors to be UFOs. Ditto for Venus.
> In the end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my local observatory,
> got the operator to move the telescope to those zeta's coordinates (with
> some difficulty)
How could you, given that not even Nancy knows the reference frame for
those coordinates? Clearly you had to make some assumptions.
> and reported what I saw. I have nothing to gain personally by making
> such a report except perhaps ridicule or insults.
There's no guarantee of that. Consider the possibility that Nancy is
paying someone to confirm her story. Plausible, which is not to say
that that is the case here.
> What I saw is what I saw and there is nothing that I can do to prove
> that to anyone here by some words that I type up on this message board.
> I'm just writing on behalf of myself because I know there are those
> here who take this business to heart
Like Heaven's Gate, and now they're dead.
> and if this gives them a better sense of what is credible one way or
> the other then all the better. So, you tell me what is credible?
Someone who can explain what they did so that someone else can reproduce
the experiment. Let's start with the assumptions you made about the
reference frame of the coordinates you used.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Note that he specifically asked about retrograde
>> *orbits*, not retrograde motion. You described retrograde motion.
> I am perfectly well aware that what I described was retrograde motion.
Yet when I noted that fact, you responded with "NO". Do make up your
mind. Why did you remove the text that shows your "NO"?
> However, the poster asked about an "..orbits as seen from the planet
> Earth".
He asked about retrograde orbits, which do exist. Retrograde orbits
are different from retrograde motion.
> The orbital paths shown from the Earth are apparent ones seen
> from the Earth.
And retrograde orbits as seen from Earth are still retrograde orbits,
just like they would be as seen from Mars.
> more stuff from Tholen....
Just like more stuff from you. So why bother to make such a remark?
It betrays your frame of mind.
>>> He is obviously confused a little about a true retrograde orbit
>>> verses retrograde motion (an apparent "retrograde" orbit).
>> Regardless of whether he is confused or not, you described "retrograde
>> motion", therefore to begin your reply to me with "NO" is incorrect.
> (sigh...) Ok, whatever
Yet here you are again.
> (guess I shouldn't argue with someone who argues
> with the N***y troll).
Exactly what are you trying to suggest? Knisely knows best? Rather
arrogant of you.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Greg Neill wrote:
>> So were the coordinates you used those of mean of date,
>> apparent, J2000, B1950 or something else? If you don't
>> know, how can know what you were looking at?
> The coordinates I used were: RA 5.151245 Dec 16.55743.
Which mean absolutely nothing without an epoch attached to them.
In other words, you didn't answer Greg's question. He didn't
ask you what the coordinates were, but rather what reference
frame you assumed for the coordinates.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JT...@home.com wrote:
>> Steve Havas wrote:
>>>> Nancy Lieder writes:
>>>>>> are those positions mean of date, apparent, J2000, B1950,
>>>>>> or something else? Are the positions geocentric or
>>>>>> topocentric to some particular location?
>>>>>> Are the times Coordinated Universal Time,
>>>>>> Terrestrial Time, Barycentric Dynamical Time,
>>>>>> or for some particular time zone? Should one
>>>>>> assume "May 23" means May 23.00000?
>>>>>> And you do realize that the positions do not fit any
>>>>>> orbit, do you?
>>>>> If folks can, on a clear night and given they are in a part of the word
>>>>> where the coordinates are visible, SEE Planet X at their local
>>>>> observatory, then does it matter?
>>>> Yes, it does matter, because nobody credible can see your object.
>>> I was the one who had the sighting at the Gordon Macmillan Observatory. You
>>> say no one credible can see this object so I guess your talking to me in a
>>> broad sense. What is credibility? The dictionary says it's the quality or
>>> power of inspiring belief. Am I credible... ? Well... I guess that's not for
>>> me to decide or worry about. Am I trying to pull a fast one to try to keep
>>> some seemingly incredibly elaborate hoax going? I sure hope not as I do not
>>> feel that that is my nature.
>>> Who am I then? Just some poster on the internet? I'm not an astronomer. I do
>>> have a diploma in Mechanical Engineering Technology and I currently work
>>> doing investor relations for public companies for what that is worth. In the
>>> end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my local observatory, got the
>>> operator to move the telescope to those zeta's coordinates (with some
>>> difficulty) and reported what I saw. I have nothing to gain personally by
>>> making such a report except perhaps ridicule or insults. What I saw is what
>>> I saw and there is nothing that I can do to prove that to anyone here by
>>> some words that I type up on this message board. I'm just writing on behalf
>>> of myself because I know there are those here who take this business to
>>> heart and if this gives them a better sense of what is credible one way or
>>> the other then all the better. So, you tell me what is credible?
>> Steve,
>> This is a NG of amateur astronomers. Having read your observing report and the
>> vagueness of it no one is convinced. Most of the report seemed to be about the
>> strange behavior of the Observatory staff. This I'm sure would convince the
>> conspiracy theory gang, but not people into astronomy. Your actual observing
>> report stated you saw " a darkish, diffuse, round spot, fairly large" and had to
>> move your head to see it on the edge of the field. No insult intended but this
>> isn't a credible sighting.
>>
>> Think about this Steve. The Observatory you were at has a .5 meter (just under
>> 20 inch) telescope. There are a number of people in this NG who have scopes that
>> large and many more with somewhat smaller scopes combined with CCD camera's that
>> could easily see what you saw. This is also a group that would make the effort
>> to see such an object. No one has been able to see anything.
>>
>> At magnitude 11 pretty much everyone in the NG would be able to see it. My 8"
>> inch is capable of seeing mag 11 diffuse galaxies. The rhetoric about
>> Observatory level scope is just to explain the lack of sightings. Amateurs can't
>> see it and all the Observatories are in on the conspiracy. Yeah, right.
>>
>> If you truly have an interest, learn about astronomy and get a scope. You can
>> enjoy astronomy and you will see why the folks here found this somewhat amusing
>> at first and really irritating as it dragged on and on.
> You'll have to excuse my ignorance Jim as I did not realize so many amateurs
> had 18" telescopes and the apparent ease of which any dim, diffuse magnitude
> 11 object can be seen.
Do you also not realize the number of professionals with even larger telescopes
and detectors far more sensitive than the human eye that scan the skies looking
for moving objects to determine whether they might be a near-Earth object?
They also haven't reported anything like what Nancy claims to exist.
> You must have a close working relationship with
> everyone here to know that no one has seen anything at those coordinates -
> that's great... I wish there was that kind of camaraderie in my field of
> work!
I have a close working relationship with some of the professional sky surveys.
The moving objects they find are reported to the Minor Planet Center and made
public. Even you could know that no one has seen anything at those
coordinates.
> Surely I was mistaken - it was probably just a bug that was on the
> eyepiece.
Lens flare? Exit pupil? There are more explanations than "just a bug" for
things that people see through telescopes that aren't really in the sky.
> I'm glad the lack of credibility of my sighting has allowed you to put this
> amusing and tiresome subject to rest.
The sky surveys can put the subject to rest, if you would choose to avail
yourself of the information available.
john Latala
> You mean not enough decimal places?
No. The problem is that a telescope has a very small angle of view that
can be a fraction of a degree. If you tell a telescope owner to point
their telescope at R.A. x and DEC y the first thing they'll do is ask you
what epoch those coordinates are in. An epoch is a reference time used to
fix or set the coordinates. What's happening is that the Earth moves in a
few unusual ways and to 'cancel' out some of that motion they assign an
epoch.
If two people with telescopes are both using the smae epoch and they point
their telescopes at some R.A./DEC then they'll be looking at the same
place.
Common epochs are B1950 and J2000. If you have a R.A./DEC in the B1950
epoch and you use that same R.A./DEC as a J2000 you could end up with the
telescope pointing far enough in a wrong direction that you wouldn't see
an object if it was there. There are mathematical formula for converting a
R.A./DEC in epoch b1950 to J2000 (and vice versa).
Chosp
You
> say no one credible can see this object so I guess your talking to me in a
> broad sense. What is credibility? The dictionary says it's the quality or
> power of inspiring belief. Am I credible... ? Well... I guess that's not
for
> me to decide or worry about. Am I trying to pull a fast one to try to keep
> some seemingly incredibly elaborate hoax going? I sure hope not as I do
not
> feel that that is my nature.
> Who am I then? Just some poster on the internet? I'm not an astronomer. I
do
> have a diploma in Mechanical Engineering Technology and I currently work
> doing investor relations for public companies for what that is worth. In
the
> end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my local observatory,
What observatory is that?
got the
> operator to move the telescope to those zeta's coordinates (with some
> difficulty) and reported what I saw. I have nothing to gain personally by
> making such a report except perhaps ridicule or insults. What I saw is
what
> I saw and there is nothing that I can do to prove that to anyone here by
> some words that I type up on this message board. I'm just writing on
behalf
> of myself because I know there are those here who take this business to
> heart and if this gives them a better sense of what is credible one way or
> the other then all the better. So, you tell me what is credible?
What is credible is that no one else saw it.
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> You'll have to excuse my ignorance Jim as I did not realize so many amateurs
> had 18" telescopes and the apparent ease of which any dim, diffuse magnitude
> 11 object can be seen. You must have a close working relationship with
> everyone here to know that no one has seen anything at those coordinates -
> that's great... I wish there was that kind of camaraderie in my field of
> work! Surely I was mistaken - it was probably just a bug that was on the
> eyepiece.
>
> I'm glad the lack of credibility of my sighting has allowed you to put this
> amusing and tiresome subject to rest. Maybe I will buy a scope so I can
> enjoy the sights of the stars and galaxies and wonders on clear dark nights.
> Then maybe I will see things from everyones here view and can quit worrying
> about pesky rogue planets and such!
>
> Clear Skies!
> Steve
You're MORE than welcome to take a peek through my scope if you're in
the Los Angles area. I'm sure the 5000+ local amateur astronomers would
also allow you to have a chance to take a peek through their scopes too!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> In Article <tf0822b...@corp.supernews.com> Mark Folsom wrote:
> > What's its magnitude?
>
> In Article <3AF01B79...@earthlink.net> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>
> > If you refuse to view Hale-Bopp through a similar size
> > scope a few years ago, how are you getting these
> > coordinates? What magnitude and size (in arc seconds)
> > is the famous non-existent planet at now?
>
> In Article <3AF0362A...@cnde.iastate.edu> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > What is the source of these coordinates with an accuracy
> > (or should I say resolution) of 36 thousanths of an arcsecond?
> > Who determined these coordinates and what Epoch are they in?
>
> The 3 individuals reported sighting Planet X used coordinates given by
> the Zetas (see Message <3AD3859B...@zetatalk.com> Planet X SIGHTED
> by 3 Observatories!)
Not a valid statement since the "3 Observatories" statements were not
issued nor verified by the astronomical community.
>so unless you're calling these folks liars, its NOT a non-existent
>planet.
More likely misinformed and not experienced observers.
> The Zetas are advising setting equipment for
> Magnitude 10 or a higher number, and filtering FOR red (not filtering
> red out). Its size is smaller than Pluto at present, and it is NOT
> reflecting sunlight as Pluto is, at present. This is my understanding.
> I don't know what Epoch is. Is this refering to what part of the Earth
> a person is viewing from? Look around these coordinates, as the folks
> sighting Planet X reported they had to looks close to the coordinates at
> times, as reported in that SIGHTED posting referenced above.
One does NOT set their telescope equipment for magnitudes. How can it be
visible at magnitude 11 if it is not reflecting sunlight? Smaller than
Pluto currently? This does not agree with your past statements. Exactly
WHO are "those folks"?
> I don't own a scope, have never peeked into one, and would not know
> which end to look through, frankly. I put the concepts the Zetas give
> to me into words. This is not hearing voices in my head, as some who
> would like this message debunked term it, as it is not a SOUND based
> message. It's a telepathic concept, which I must translate into words
> or diagrams. In the case of coordinates, I use a SkyMap image, the one
> at the Path page (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm) and get
> the notion that the path is moving here or there, and then get more
> precise. It takes a long time for me to get complicated concepts down,
> and in that the problem is ME, as if I'm not oriented I can't grasp the
> concept, and if I don't grasp it correctly I certainly can't communicate
> it.
Now you blame the Zetas for your failures and short comings? Since
you don't own a scope, have refused to look thru one when offered,
wouldn't know which end to look through, and have never been outside
and have seen this non-existent planet for yourself, why are you trying
to convince those of us who DO own telescopes, KNOW how to use them,
can LOOK through the correct end of the scope, and know what an EPOCH
is, that we are not looking in the right place or don't know what we're
looking at!
Now you're dragging innocent casual observers into the fray and using
them as experts in a field of which you nor they have little or no
knowledge.
Greg Neill
> The coordinates I used were: RA 5.151245 Dec 16.55743.
> I never said I knew what I was looking at, I just stated what I saw.
>
The above is like stating, "I visited a location 3 mile north, two
miles east". What's the reference? If you don't know, and your
pal at the observatory didn't ask the same question, then you
are both either completely incompetent or one of you (and I have
a pretty good idea which one) is a trolling liar.
Brian Tung
> He asked about retrograde orbits, which do exist. Retrograde orbits
> are different from retrograde motion.
>
> > The orbital paths shown from the Earth are apparent ones seen
> > from the Earth.
>
> And retrograde orbits as seen from Earth are still retrograde orbits,
> just like they would be as seen from Mars.
That is absolutely true. However, since viewing from the Earth has no
effect on their "retrograde-ness," I think it is possible the original
poster had retrograde motion in mind. (Of course, it is also possible
the literal interpretation is correct--we can't know for sure.)
In any event, this thread has already continued to descriptions of both
retrograde orbits and retrograde motion; I think the original poster
has already had his or her question answered, whatever its intent may
have been.
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
PalmAtlas Home at http://astro.isi.edu/palmatlas/
David W Knisely
> Yet here you are again.
And unfortunately, so are you......PLONK!
Bob May
upon when you make posts like those that you have made. Retrograde orbits
and retrograde motion are both well defined motions of planets and have been
for a very long time. Your misuse of the words has caused a lot of posts
that have shown up your inability to understand what you are talking about.
Please familiarize yourself with the standard terminology before you stuff
your foot in your mouth much more.
Bob May
that it exists and that it's not something already known.
A lot of people find strange things to them up there all the time and some
even go to the point of actually reporting them to officials whereupon they
often get a reply back that the object found as NGCxxxx or so forth.
As to the size of amateur instruments, there are actually quite a few
instruments of the meter sized variety and the instruments that are between
20" and 30" are so common now that it's probably impossible to count all of
them as many aren't advertised as having been built anymore. The largest
instrument being constructed now is the 70" scope in the Oakland area.
Something like that will make Planet X visible to the blind.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Yet here you are again.
> And unfortunately, so are you......PLONK!
And the purpose of posting your response?
tho...@antispam.ham
> You really should use the standard terms that have previously been agreed
> upon when you make posts like those that you have made. Retrograde orbits
> and retrograde motion are both well defined motions of planets and have been
> for a very long time. Your misuse of the words has caused a lot of posts
> that have shown up your inability to understand what you are talking about.
> Please familiarize yourself with the standard terminology before you stuff
> your foot in your mouth much more.
Since you didn't include anyone else's text, your posting is ambiguous
with regard to whom you're talking about. On the other hand, the
header of your message references my posting, yet I did not misuse
either "retrograde orbits" or "retrograde motion". I'm not the one
stuffing any foot in my mouth.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> He asked about retrograde orbits, which do exist. Retrograde orbits
>> are different from retrograde motion.
>>> The orbital paths shown from the Earth are apparent ones seen
>>> from the Earth.
>> And retrograde orbits as seen from Earth are still retrograde orbits,
>> just like they would be as seen from Mars.
> That is absolutely true. However, since viewing from the Earth has no
> effect on their "retrograde-ness," I think it is possible the original
> poster had retrograde motion in mind. (Of course, it is also possible
> the literal interpretation is correct--we can't know for sure.)
Over the years I've learned that many non-astronomers simply don't
know the jargon to describe what they're talking about, thus there
could be MANY other interpretations. A little knowledge can be a
dangerous thing, because use of a little jargon can steer the listener's
interpretations in one particular direction, and away from what the
speaker is getting at.
Paul Schlyter
> Greg Neill <gnei...@MOVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> news:hZmJ6.25516$TW.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
>> So were the coordinates you used those of mean of date,
>> apparent, J2000, B1950 or something else? If you don't
>> know, how can know what you were looking at?
>
coordinates, B1950 coordinates, or some other coordinates? Nancy
didn't tell, did she? However, one must know that in order to point
the telescope correctly.
If you still don't understand, then consider this: suppose you agreed
to meet someone out on the open ocean: you agreed on latitude and
longitude, but when going there you find you didn't know whether the
longitude was from Greenwich or from Paris.... (today this is no
issue -- everybody uses longitudes from Greenwich, but some 150+
years ago England and France refused to agree on one single system
of longitudes). If you used longitude from Greenwich while your
friend used longitude from Paris, you would miss one another out
on the ocean. It's a similar situation when you use RA and Decl
without knowing which epoch they refer to.
> I never said I knew what I was looking at, I just stated what I saw.
Judging from your description, you might very well have seen a
deformed star image near the edge of the field of view. Many
eyepieces don't have full sharpness all across their field of view,
and you might have been looking through such an eyepiece.
Or think of it this way: if what you saw was a real object, then
other observers ought to have seen it too - right? If an experienced
observer "sees" something no-one else sees, he doesn't start to
accuse all the others of a conspiracy - instead he questions his own
observation and starts to consider possible errors of his own.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Paul Schlyter
David W Knisely <ka0...@navix.net> wrote:
> more stuff from Tholen....
>
>>> He is obviously confused a little about a true retrograde orbit
>>> verses retrograde motion (an apparent "retrograde" orbit).
>>
>> Regardless of whether he is confused or not, you described "retrograde
>> motion", therefore to begin your reply to me with "NO" is incorrect.
>
> (sigh...) Ok, whatever (guess I shouldn't argue with someone who argues
> with the N***y troll).
Paul Schlyter
> However, since viewing from the Earth has no effect on their
> "retrograde-ness,"
its apparent orbit would have a "direct loop" (i.e. the planet would,
as seen from the Earth, briefly appear to move in a direct direction)
when the planet was near superior conjunction.
john Latala
> You really should use the standard terms that have previously been agreed
< ... snip ... >
Who is the "You" that you (Bob May) are referring to? It would be a little
easier to follow what you're saying if we knew who it was directed at.
john Latala
> The largest instrument being constructed now is the 70" scope in the
> Oakland area. Something like that will make Planet X visible to the
> blind.
I'm taking 'blind' in that last sentence to mean visually impaired because
that telescope probably wouldn't be any help in getting the mentally blind
(for lack of a better word) to see.
tho...@antispam.ham
> David W Knisely wrote:
>> more stuff from Tholen....
>>>> He is obviously confused a little about a true retrograde orbit
>>>> verses retrograde motion (an apparent "retrograde" orbit).
>>> Regardless of whether he is confused or not, you described "retrograde
>>> motion", therefore to begin your reply to me with "NO" is incorrect.
>> (sigh...) Ok, whatever (guess I shouldn't argue with someone who argues
>> with the N***y troll).
> Ouch --- apparently "Dave and Nancy" are still going strong... :-(
So are you, Paul. How ironic.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> However, since viewing from the Earth has no effect on their
>> "retrograde-ness,"
> Not quite true.
On the contrary, the "retrograde-ness" of an *orbit* does not depend on
where you view the orbit.
> If a planet orbited in a retrogade direction, then
> its apparent orbit would have a "direct loop" (i.e. the planet would,
> as seen from the Earth, briefly appear to move in a direct direction)
> when the planet was near superior conjunction.
Consider a planet in Earth's orbit, but retrograde. Now put it at
superior conjunction. What is the apparent direction of motion?
Would you now like to correct your statement?
Steve Havas
telescope to those coordinates. I was informed that you need to know what
the LST is at the location and moment that you intend to look at any RA/Dec
to find an object in the sky and that there is a calculation that needs to
be repeated every minute because the sky rotates. Hope this clarifies
things.
Regards,
Steve
john Latala <jrla...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.101050...@shell.golden.net...
Brian Tung
> I was able to confirm that Local Sidereal Time was used to point the
> telescope to those coordinates. I was informed that you need to know what
> the LST is at the location and moment that you intend to look at any RA/Dec
> to find an object in the sky and that there is a calculation that needs to
> be repeated every minute because the sky rotates. Hope this clarifies
> things.
Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Here's an analogy to the nature of the problem. Suppose that the earth
wobbled a bit, so that the north pole, which is currently in the middle
of the Arctic Sea, wandered in a 47-degree wide circle over a period of,
oh, 26,000 years or so.
Then, Los Angeles, which is currently at about 118 degrees W, 34 degrees
N, wouldn't always be there, right? If the north pole were to move over
a period of time to the middle of Hudson Bay, both longitude and latitude
would change.
As a matter of fact, the north pole *does* wander, but not with respect
to the land mass on the earth; instead, it wanders with respect to the
distant stars. The north celestial pole is currently near Polaris, but
it wasn't always like that. In previous eras it has been near Thuban in
Draco, and also Vega in Lyra. As a result, the celestial coordinates of
everything was different. This part has nothing to do with celestial
objects moving with respect to one another (although they do that, too),
but only with the earth wobbling like a top every 26,000 years, so that
its axis, which currently points to Polaris, points to a whole slew of
different things over that period of 26,000 years.
Especially when coordinates are pinned down to the hundredth of an
arcsecond (as you specified), it is especially important to give the
equinox, or the date for which the coordinates are valid. If you give
RA 0, Dec 90 for equinox 2000.0, you'll come near Polaris, but if you
give those same coordinates for equinox -3000.0, you'll be closer to
Thuban than to Polaris. Fifty years (say, between 1950 and 2000) isn't
too much to worry about with a precision of only a degree, but since you
gave such precise coordinates, the equinox is especially important.
Often confused with equinox is epoch. Epoch has to do with the relative
positions of the celestial objects at the time. For example, many of the
Hipparcos positions are given as equinox 2000.0, epoch 1991.25, meaning
that the positions are reckoned with respect to the coordinate systems of
January 2000, but the relative positions are traced back to April 1991.
(Some web interfaces will use proper motions and binary solutions to then
forward calculate the coordinates for epoch 2000.0.)
There is therefore a distinction between equinox and epoch. For distant
objects, coordinates vary in a predictable circle as you change the
equinox date of the coordinates; the effect of epoch depends primarily
on the proper motion of the objects.
Nancy Lieder
John Latala wrote:
> An epoch is a reference time used to fix or set the coordinates.
> What's happening is that the Earth moves in a few unusual
> ways and to 'cancel' out some of that motion they assign an
I have an astronomy book dated 1991, and it states that star charts and
catalogs are being redone at that time into J2000, as the year 2000 is
behind us. I presume that coordinates given for 2001, by the Zetas are
in accordance with the J2000 star charts. I’ll ask:
Right you are.
ZetaTalk
Well, and the three observatories did not ASK this information when
given the coordinates. Why not, if it is key? I would think that
RECENT coordinates given do not need this epoch clarification. Kind of
a dumb question, when you think about it. How would coordinates given
in 2001 BE in accordance with 1950 earth wobble? You’d only need to
know the epoch if you were dealing with a, for instance, 1961 RA and Dec
given, right? Then you’d need to convert, right? Dear David Tholen,
once again you’re over there in the corner, sorting your paper clips,
muttering to yourself about details that don’t even apply, missing the
whole point of the conversation!
In Article <IPFJ6.119$qa5.1467@read1> Steve Havas wrote:
> I was able to confirm that Local Sidereal Time was used to
> point the telescope to those coordinates. I was informed that
> you need to know what the LST is at the location and
> moment that you intend to look at any RA/Dec to find an
> object in the sky and that there is a calculation that needs to
> be repeated every minute because the sky rotates.
And went to his local observatory and LOOKED, rather than argue about
how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
Nancy Lieder
> In the end I'm some faceless guy who went down to my
> to those zeta's coordinates (with some difficulty) and
> reported what I saw.
In Article <pIqJ6.109$qa5.1106@read1> Steve Havas wrote:
> I did not realize so many amateurs had 18" telescopes
> and the apparent ease of which any dim, diffuse
> magnitude 11 object can be seen. ... Surely I was
> mistaken - it was probably just a bug that was on the
> eyepiece.
And ZOOMED, as observatory scopes can do, magnifying so the object now
smaller than Pluto when viewed from Earth at this time. The same bug
smudge must also have been on the lense at Lowel and Neuchatel, I
presume, coincidentally. What these folks described was consistent with
a smoldering brown dwarf, which Planet X is. Magnified by the “zoom”
observatory scopes provide to be big enough to see. NOT in the star
charts, as confirmed by all three sightings. MOVING according to the
Zeta coordinates.
Neuchatal Feb 7, 2001
The Neuchatel observatory got it. They are very excited,
wondering if it is a comet or a brown dwarf, through the
latest coordinates you gave. I'm going to ask for further
details. The daughter of the astronomer reports that they
suspect a comet or a brown dwarf on the process to
become a pulsar since it emits "waves".
Lowell April 4, 2001
He opened up the McAllister telescope, a newer but smaller
scope with a 16" mirror (f3 primary, f18 system, built in
1963). We trained the big do-hickey on the Coordinates
given for April 1 2001: ... Lo and behold, there appeared a
faint blip not too far off center. ... The operator described
the object as diffuse and of approximate magnitude 11. ...
I asked the telescope operator if he thought it looked
reddish and he said he didn't think we'd be able to see any
color. I don't know if he meant that the lack of color was a
limitation of the McAllister scope or of the faint, diffuse
object itself.
Gordon MacMillan April 8, 2001
Near the center I see nothing that I think looks like the 12th
(just a couple stars) but at the very top right corner if I moved
my
head I could see what appeared to be a darkish, diffuse, round
spot, fairly large.
JTRIV
one of these ZOOMS for my scope? My scope is only 8" but I bet with one of
those ZOOMS that the observatories use it would be awesome! Also the many
guys with large scopes (some larger than the 18" at Lowell and the 19" at
MacMillan) would probably like to buy them too. Does Meade sell them?
Astro-Physics?
;-)
Clear Skies
Jim