Test Your Pluto Knowledge!

Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
Earth, how bright would Pluto be?

A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.

B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with the
naked eye.

C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining every
star except the Sun.

Find out the correct answer at http://KenCroswell.com/PlutoQuestion.html .

Other recent stories:

A star in Eridanus may have escaped from the Pleiades cluster: see
http://KenCroswell.com/GD50.html .

The Horsehead Nebula is rotating: see
http://KenCroswell.com/HorseheadNebulaIsRotating.html .

All articles at http://KenCroswell.com/articles.html .

Correct email: MagnificentUniverse "at" yahoo "dot" com.

Magnificent Universe writes:

Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
Earth, how bright would Pluto be?

A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.

B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with the
naked eye.

C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining every
star except the Sun.

Simple: C.

Pluto's absolute magnitude is only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars' absolute
magnitude, so Pluto would be only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars when in the
same location in the Solar System. During Mars' perihelic opposition
three years ago, it reached an apparent magnitude of -2.9, so Pluto
would be -2.2, brighter than Sirius (about twice as bright).

So?

By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
poodles?

"Magnificent Universe" wrote in message
...
| Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
| Earth, how bright would Pluto be?
|
| A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.
|
| B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with
the
| naked eye.
|
| C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining
every
| star except the Sun.
|
| Find out the correct answer at http://KenCroswell.com/PlutoQuestion.html .


The idiot doesn't mention albedo once.
Who is the nutter, you?
[rest of crap snipped]

Androcles

wrote in message
...
| Magnificent Universe writes:
|
| Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest
to
| Earth, how bright would Pluto be?
|
| A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.
|
| B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with
the
| naked eye.
|
| C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining
every
| star except the Sun.
|
| Simple: C.
|
| Pluto's absolute magnitude is only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars' absolute
| magnitude, so Pluto would be only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars when in the
| same location in the Solar System. During Mars' perihelic opposition
| three years ago, it reached an apparent magnitude of -2.9, so Pluto
| would be -2.2, brighter than Sirius (about twice as bright).
|
| So?
|
| By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
| IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
| wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
| poodles?

When puddles are dorsets, of course. Poole is in Dorset.


|

wrote in message
...
By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
poodles?

The way I understand it is that a dwarf star is still a star, and a dwarf
galaxy is still a galaxy, but a dwarf planet is not a planet. (We do know
that toy poodles are too small to be raal dogs - real dogs go WOOF, not
yap-yap-yap. G)

Clear skies, Alan

Sorcerer writes:

Magnificent Universe wrote:

Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
Earth, how bright would Pluto be?

A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.

B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with the
naked eye.

C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining every
star except the Sun.

Find out the correct answer at http://KenCroswell.com/PlutoQuestion.html .

The idiot doesn't mention albedo once.

You're erroneously presupposing that he's an idiot. Why should he
mention albedo?

Who is the nutter, you?

What does your question have to do with astronomy, Sorcerer?

[rest of crap snipped]

On what basis do you call it crap?

Sorcerer writes:

Magnificent Universe writes:

Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
Earth, how bright would Pluto be?

A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.

B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with the
naked eye.

C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining every
star except the Sun.

Simple: C.

Pluto's absolute magnitude is only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars' absolute
magnitude, so Pluto would be only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars when in the
same location in the Solar System. During Mars' perihelic opposition
three years ago, it reached an apparent magnitude of -2.9, so Pluto
would be -2.2, brighter than Sirius (about twice as bright).

So?

By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
poodles?

When puddles are dorsets, of course. Poole is in Dorset.

Non sequitur. I said nothing about puddles, dorsets, or Poole.

wrote in message
...
| Sorcerer writes:
|
| Magnificent Universe writes:
|
| Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest
to
| Earth, how bright would Pluto be?
|
| A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see
it.
|
| B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not
with the
| naked eye.
|
| C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining
every
| star except the Sun.
|
| Simple: C.
|
| Pluto's absolute magnitude is only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars' absolute
| magnitude, so Pluto would be only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars when in the
| same location in the Solar System. During Mars' perihelic opposition
| three years ago, it reached an apparent magnitude of -2.9, so Pluto
| would be -2.2, brighter than Sirius (about twice as bright).
|
| So?
|
| By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
| IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
| wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
| poodles?
|
| When puddles are dorsets, of course. Poole is in Dorset.
|
| Non sequitur.

Of course it is. So are toy poodles and the American Kennel Club, ****wit.
If you wish to have a joke don't whine when it comes back to you.

| I said nothing about puddles, dorsets, or Poole.

Non sequitur.

Androcles.

wrote in message
news | Sorcerer writes:
|
| Magnificent Universe wrote:
|
| Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest
to
| Earth, how bright would Pluto be?
|
| A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see
it.
|
| B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not
with the
| naked eye.
|
| C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining
every
| star except the Sun.
|
| Find out the correct answer at
http://KenCroswell.com/PlutoQuestion.html .
|
| The idiot doesn't mention albedo once.
|
| You're erroneously presupposing that he's an idiot. Why should he
| mention albedo?

Crosswell's not teaching, but trying. It is not a presupposition but a post
observation. Albedo is essential to his argument, Pluto is observed by
reflected sunlight.


| Who is the nutter, you?
|
| What does your question have to do with astronomy, Sorcerer?

My question was directed at "Magnificent Universe".
"Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. " has no
foundation in astronomy. Unless you are he, **** off.



| [rest of crap snipped]

| On what basis do you call it crap?
Crap, drool, drivel, I don't care what it is called, ****wit,
Pluto is where it is and "what if" or "suppose" has no bearing on it.

Androcles.

Sorcerer writes:

Magnificent Universe writes:

Suppose Pluto had the same orbit around the Sun as Mars. When closest to
Earth, how bright would Pluto be?

A. Pluto would still be so faint that you'd need a telescope to see it.

B. Pluto would be bright enough to see through binoculars, but not with the
naked eye.

C. Pluto would be one of the brightest objects in the sky, outshining every
star except the Sun.

Simple: C.

Pluto's absolute magnitude is only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars' absolute
magnitude, so Pluto would be only 0.7 mag fainter than Mars when in the
same location in the Solar System. During Mars' perihelic opposition
three years ago, it reached an apparent magnitude of -2.9, so Pluto
would be -2.2, brighter than Sirius (about twice as bright).

So?

By the way, the Sun isn't a star: it's a dwarf star. It's the new
IAU nomenclature; a dwarf something is no longer a something. I
wonder when the AKC will declare that toy poodles are no longer
poodles?

When puddles are dorsets, of course. Poole is in Dorset.

Non sequitur.

Of course it is.

Glad you agree.

So are toy poodles and the American Kennel Club,

Incorrect; sorry that you are unable to see the connection, Sorcerer.

****wit.

Who is "****wit", Sorcerer? Suffering from attribution problems?

If you wish to have a joke don't whine when it comes back to you.

The key word here is "if". No joke was involved on my part, Sorcerer.

I said nothing about puddles, dorsets, or Poole.

Non sequitur.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Androcles.

Non sequitur.