Plutos 5th moon? Why didnt EA*RTH cosmic observers see PLUTOS p4-p5 moons in the near past?

Here I thought that Pluto had only one...

So I came into the thread thinking "cool now it has two"...

Deny Ignorance, indeed.

Five of 'em? Wow. Gotta wonder what else is out there waiting to be discovered...

reply to post by seagull


What would be really cool is to see them and they formed a Klemperer Rosette .

That would be mind blowing.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by yorkshirelad

 

Or option C they were cloaked

But I get what your saying. It doesnt make sens that Hubble is/was able to see other galaxies and not see those right next to the SOL system @tleast going in the direction of Pluto. Thanks for your input yorkshirelad, all views are welcome here..

edit on 7/11/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

I think that is very reasonable, else our equipment that can see galaxies from far away would have mapped them out in detail.

Though they don't give us straight answers often. I was shocked just this year finding out about Ceres. And what it looked like, just past Mars, and they had called this blue jewel, mini earth, an asteroid, now think its a dwarf planet. Truth? They don't tell it.

How about a moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

That's no moon...it's a space station...

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by yorkshirelad

 

Or option C they were cloaked

But I get what your saying. It doesnt make sens that Hubble is/was able to see other galaxies and not see those right next to the SOL system @tleast going in the direction of Pluto. Thanks for your input yorkshirelad, all views are welcome here..

edit on 7/11/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

I think that is very reasonable, else our equipment that can see galaxies from far away would have mapped them out in detail.

Though they don't give us straight answers often. I was shocked just this year finding out about Ceres. And what it looked like, just past Mars, and they had called this blue jewel, mini earth, an asteroid, now think its a dwarf planet. Truth? They don't tell it.

How about a moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

A moon orbits another body (other than the sun).

Names like "Dwarf Planet" didn't exist not too long ago (before Pluto was demoted). Ceres was refered to as an asteroid because:

A) it was very small compared to all the other planets
B) it's location is in the asteroid belt.
C) it wasn't called a moon because it's not in orbit around a planet.

Over time the standards for what you call an object have changed, and in a lot of ways for the better. The Voyager probes, followed by Galileo and Cassini showed us that some of the new moons discovered around Jupiter and Saturn are little more than small rocks themselves, with Ceres being a lot bigger than some of them. Even Mars moons Phobos and Deimos are only a tens of km wide.

Over time the astronomical community started putting some of these lables in order and even adding a new class: Dwarf Planets. This helped with objects like Ceres which is very small, yet big enough to be nice and spherical like other planets, but doesn't orbit another body so it can't be a moon.

Objects like Pluto and futher out are also small, but more than big enough to be planet shapped, but they were also located in what we call the Kuiper Belt, helping define objects out there even better.

Your link to the wiki is one of the best images we have of Ceres to date, but the good news is in 2015 when the space probe Dawn gets there, and we'll have some great pictures. I'm imagining it's going to look rocky with craters all over it, but with ice too.

reply to post by eriktheawful


That'd freak some folks out, wouldn't it? Me among 'em .

They have to keep that mass relay near Pluto very quiet, and declassifying Pluto as a planet diverted attention of activity of anomalies orbiting Pluto.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I think its a moon, that left the orbit of another planet, unless its ET ish. Some moons are mini planets. Earth could have been a moon of tiamat along with this other for all we know.

I've never seen it before or heard of it, just out past mars and its beautiful. I was looking up names that came to me, Ceres was one of them, and ended up with the Seneca tribe, the one in Mexico drew me strongly, I didn't write it down but some things came that evening as I was going to sleep, so I went on the computer and searched them out.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

That'd freak some folks out, wouldn't it? Me among 'em

.

Remember how there is suppose to be some huge fleet coming towards us from out towards Virgo or some constellation (according to some people that is) and the pictures they show are pretty mucha disfigured blob? (looks like a gas cloud in my opinion).

Well, now if someone showed me a picture of a rosette like that........AND spectrum analysis showed the objects were blue shifted........

THEN I would poo my pants, hehehehehe.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I think its a moon, that left the orbit of another planet, unless its ET ish. Some moons are mini planets. Earth could have been a moon of tiamat along with this other for all we know.

I've never seen it before or heard of it, just out past mars and its beautiful. I was looking up names that came to me, Ceres was one of them, and ended up with the Seneca tribe, the one in Mexico drew me strongly, I didn't write it down but some things came that evening as I was going to sleep, so I went on the computer and searched them out.

You've never heard of Ceres? Really?

Wow.....the staple of science fiction novels! Over 30 years ago as a teen I would find it talked about in all sorts of scifi books I would read. Always used as a base, either for mining operations of the Asteroid Belt, or for a space battle. Depended upon the book.

An escaped moon? I can't say your idea is impossible, as the early solar system was a very chaotic place 4.5 billion years ago.

An idea I had was that it formed closer to Mars,where the material for planet forming was thinner, hence being smaller, then impact episodes with it had it gradually migrate to where it's at now.

However, Ceres orbital eccentricity is 0.079, which is pretty stable, as copared to say Pluto, who's eccentricity is 0.248 (a lot higher) so I've always thought the argument that Pluto was an escaped moon of Neptune carreid a lot moe weight.

But again, I can't say your idea is impossible.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Well, now if someone showed me a picture of a rosette like that........AND spectrum analysis showed the objects were blue shifted........

I'd be diggin' a deep, deep hole...and pullin' it closed behind me. Completely freakin' out in the process...

I can't imagine the shock that would occur world wide...

There'd be no hiding that!

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Its all about light and angular diameter you have to remember Hubble has had upgrades done over the years

You mention galaxies here is some info for M31 Andromeda the Milky Ways neighbour

www.noao.edu...

From the link above

On clear moonless nights away from city lights and with a pair of quality binoculars this object can be traced out to an angular size of 4 degrees. To give you a comparison the full moon has an angular size of just 1/2 a degree

What angular size will those lumps of rock have at the distance of pluto

Some info on angular size

en.wikipedia.org...

Various objects listed in link above Sun, Moon etc.

Thank you ALL for contributing to the thread the various data shares and conspiracy theorist mind approaches on the new Pluto moons. From what I have read in the thread see that yes there IS a possibility that these smaller objects could of been overlooked by (KNOWN) cosmic observation devices like HUBBLE. STILL I find it odd

In reference to the Klemperer Rosette that would be a INTELLIGENT SIGN of guided celestial influence,YES!!!

Well check out this link of comet c/2011/w3 COMET LOVEJOY
@ lasco c3TIMERS 2011/12/15-00:06
& lasco c2TIMERS AN EXTRA COMET PRESENT @2011/12/13-20:36 / THEY (something &lovejoy) ENTER TOGETHER @ 2011/12/15-16:24

INFRONT OF LOVE JOY THERE IS ANOTHER (SOMETHING) MOVING AT ITS SAME PACE here is link with the (something) infront of comet Lovejoy moving with the comet-IT WAS NEVER TALKED ABOUT BEING WITH LOVEJOY? So I call it a (SOMETHING) -I think I seen 2- It stays atop LOVEJOY as it rises towards the sun/SOL and TAKES THE WHOLE RIDE.. You can see the FROMATION in the links below. enjoy


LINK
sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov...

Once inside link: ENTER DATES FROM LINK 2011-12-12 TO 2011-12-15 IN YYYY-MM-DD FORMAT
IMAGE TYPE -LASCOC2 OR LASCOC3 DISPLAY -MOVIE THEN HIT -SEARCH

Thank you all again.

NAMASTE*******
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
But how can Hubble see other galaxies further away???

Galaxies are much brighter objects, and even the very far and faint galaxies Hubble observes involves exposures that are very, very long. Planetary observations from hubble don't normally involve exposures that long for if they did the planet itself would tend to drown out the signal.

And not see them atleast near Pluto. This is somehting that makes 1 wonder?

That's not how it works. Very small objects like the moons of Pluto are very hard to detect.

What doesnt make sense to me in your reply - galaxies are not much brighter at all guy, they are so ridiculously far that the light emmiting from those neighbooring (and not so neighbooring) galaxies would take literally forever to get through our gas clouds, different planets-moons-astroid belts-stars and finally to the Hubblle..long exposure my ass How much light gets through the VIOD space between galaxies? We shouldnt even be talking about other galaxies because physics and understandings on EA*rth ( ) do not exist the same in other galaxies.

Anyways the thing that doesnt make sense, suspiciously, why hasnt the Hubble been taking long exposure pictures of Pluto? Im sure the same "technique" could be applied when Hubble takes amazing high res pics of other galaxies across the void. So show us the planet Pluto and its company through the Long Exp. technique?

Pluto has always been mysterious, with the little known facts (to the public) that Nasa and such space agencies have given us, I become a bit curious. Nasa agency is not a public one, its a government lol. They only show and tell the sheep the obvious stuff, the good stuff, like pluto and spaceships ( ) they keep to themselves.. Nasa was not created for the public, nor are they funded Billions of $ to make crap rovers and take crap pictures of space. Much they have and know, much they are doing, that the public has no clue about.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent federal agency

Source

The ancient Martian crater where the Curiosity rover landed looks strikingly similar to the Mojave Desert in California with its looming mountains and hanging haze, scientists say.

Mars crater where rover landed looks Earth-like

If you still follow Nasa and everything they tell you.. you are a cosmic sheep The obvious stuff the public is allowed to know. The big things Nasa knows about all the planets, the sun, other stars and planets, and intelligent life, will not be known to cosmic sheep.

Its quite easy to parrot or photocopy what you are told into your brain and accept it as fact, but I am a rebel when it comes to logic we the pubic are fed. I dont bite on everything they feed us, a lot of things just dont add up, makes me curious abotu their honesty and what they really know that they 'cant' share.

When you are being funded BILLIONS of $ (from who? cant just be taxpayer $), Im sure those funding you will tell you to shut up and keep things quiet for the public. Those funders make the rules, and Nasa works hand-in-hand with them. If you think "great Nasa" is there for you.. seriously come on now.

~ Love is an art

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Why didnt EA*RTH cosmic observers see PLUTOS p4-p5 moons in the near past?

What is attracting these moons

to Pluto. Why do they seem to get stuck in its orbit and not pass it as if it has a heavier mass? Or IS something PUSHING THESE CELESTIALS OUT OF THE OORT CLOUD?

Thoughts another fine example of failed logic these moons are so small and faint you have to have the right equipment to look for and find them is that really such a mystery to you

Look how many moons Saturn has thats a lot closer but many were not spotted until recently!

For all you or anyone knows these things are remnants from when Pluto formed so you cant assume there is anything sinister about them being there

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
Anyways the thing that doesnt make sense, suspiciously, why hasnt the Hubble been taking long exposure pictures of Pluto? Im sure the same "technique" could be applied when Hubble takes amazing high res pics of other galaxies across the void. So show us the planet Pluto and its company through the Long Exp. technique?

The reason I see for not having those long exposures is the movement of Hubble during that exposure.

I don't know if the parallax resulting from the distance to Pluto and Hubble's movement would be enough to get just some streaks of light instead of a sharp photo, but I think it's possible.

Originally posted by LoveisanArt

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
But how can Hubble see other galaxies further away???

Galaxies are much brighter objects, and even the very far and faint galaxies Hubble observes involves exposures that are very, very long. Planetary observations from hubble don't normally involve exposures that long for if they did the planet itself would tend to drown out the signal.

And not see them atleast near Pluto. This is somehting that makes 1 wonder?

That's not how it works. Very small objects like the moons of Pluto are very hard to detect.

What doesnt make sense to me in your reply - galaxies are not much brighter at all guy, they are so ridiculously far that the light emmiting from those neighbooring (and not so neighbooring) galaxies would take literally forever to get through our gas clouds, different planets-moons-astroid belts-stars and finally to the Hubblle..long exposure my ass

How much light gets through the VIOD space between galaxies? We shouldnt even be talking about other galaxies because physics and understandings on EA*rth (

) do not exist the same in other galaxies.

Actually, yes. Galaxies can be brighter than Pluto, and appear larger in the sky that Pluto.

Let us take a look at Pluto :

Diameter: 1,153 km
Apparent Magnitude: 13.65 to 16.3

Magnitude is the brightness of an object. The more positive the number, the fainter the light. For example, Venus can have an apparent Magnitude of -4.9 to -3.8 which is very bright. A full moon can have an Apparent Magnitude of -12.4.

The brightest Pluto gets is +13.65. That's dim. Very, very dim. One of my telescopes is a 5 inch reflector. But it's not big enough to see Pluto. It's just too dim for a 5 inch mirror to collect the light for my eyes. I would need an 12 inch or bigger reflector to see it with my eyes. I might be able to capture it on my camera since I can expose it longer than my eyes with a smaller scope, but it will appear as only a small point of light because it's so small.

Now let's talk about the Andromeda Galaxy :

Size: it's around 120,000 light years across.
Apparent Size: 190' x 60' (how many degrees, minutes or seconds it covers the sky)
Apparent Magnitude: 3.44

It's a lot brighter than Pluto. So bright, that you can actually see it with your naked eyes. If you look at it's RA and Dec coordinates (it's next to the constellation Andromeda), you'll see a faint smudge of light, as long as you are in a dark place with no city lights and no moon out.

Not bad for something that is about 2.5 million light years away. So even though it is much, much, much farther away than Pluto, it is also very, very large, has somewhere around 200 to 400 billion stars in it, so yes, it's mcuh more visible and brighter than Pluto.

How about the Whirlpool Galaxy, M51a ?

Apparent Size: 11.2' x 6.9'
Apparent Magnitude: 8.4
Distance: 23 million light years

Here is a galaxy that is 10 times the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy, yet you can see it using only binoculars .

You can't see Pluto even with binoculars. Way too small and faint.

So you can go on and on about NASA all you want, but many of us have our own equipment and know quite well that it's much easier to photograph a galaxy than it is Pluto. Do a Google search of Amateur Astrophotography, and look for pictures people have posted.

People really crack me up when they use Hubble and claim that it should be able to see things that it can't. Remember that Pluto is so small and reflects so little light (the sun looks like a bright star you would see at night if you were on Pluto looking up at it), that there is not much for Hubble to see. Where as a galaxy is HUGE, and emitting light, not reflecting it.

Originally posted by LoveisanArt

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
But how can Hubble see other galaxies further away???

Galaxies are much brighter objects, and even the very far and faint galaxies Hubble observes involves exposures that are very, very long. Planetary observations from hubble don't normally involve exposures that long for if they did the planet itself would tend to drown out the signal.

And not see them atleast near Pluto. This is somehting that makes 1 wonder?

That's not how it works. Very small objects like the moons of Pluto are very hard to detect.

What doesnt make sense to me in your reply - galaxies are not much brighter at all guy,

Current brightness of Charon, Pluto's brightest moon by far:
Apparent magnitude 15.94
Apparent magnitude of the Sunflower galaxy, a galaxy I have personally seen, which also happens to be 37 million light years away:
Apparent magnitude 9.3
So in terms of brightness, a galaxy 37 million light years away is more than 452 times brighter than Pluto's brightest moon. Yes, galaxies ARE much brighter.

they are so ridiculously far that the light emmiting from those neighbooring (and not so neighbooring) galaxies would take literally forever to get through our gas clouds, different planets-moons-astroid belts-stars and finally to the Hubblle..

So? They're still brighter. That's a fact.

long exposure my ass

Again, you are denying facts. It is a fact that Hubble uses long, or even very long exposures to capture dim galaxies. Galaxies which are much dimmer than the Sunflower galaxy. The same option does not really exist for finding moons of pluto: past a certain point they'll be blurred by their own orbital motion and their photons of light will not accumulate on a single set of pixels, thus the signal to noise ratio levels off.

How much light gets through the VIOD space between galaxies?

Plenty. See above.

We shouldnt even be talking about other galaxies because physics and understandings on EA*rth (

) do not exist the same in other galaxies.

False.

Anyways the thing that doesnt make sense, suspiciously, why hasnt the Hubble been taking long exposure pictures of Pluto? Im sure the same "technique" could be applied when Hubble takes amazing high res pics of other galaxies across the void.

See above. It doesn't work for moving objects. There's a limit to how much time hubble can expose pluto for before any of its moons would blur due to their orbital motion and not get any brighter. The hubble deep field used days and days worth of light. That wouldn't work for Pluto.

Its quite easy to parrot or photocopy what you are told into your brain and accept it as fact, but I am a rebel when it comes to logic we the pubic are fed.

Listen, I've seen galaxies for myself, I know how bright they are and how dim Pluto is. Get it straight.

~ Love is an art

Which you obviously haven't learned seeing as how you irrationaly hate NASA.

This belongs in the same basket as "why can't Hubble see the Apollo modules on the Moon". The answer is: they are too small, too far and (in case of Pluto's moons) too dim. Galaxies, on the other hand, are truly enormous and quite bright. You can see one with the naked eye, a few using binoculars, and hundreds of them in a decent telescope.

People should look at the actual numbers (the apparent magnitude and angular size) instead of just going by their gut feeling.

Originally posted by scottlpool2003
Top speed of a meteor 160,000mph, range of Pluto 95,000,000 miles wouldn't give a hell of a lot of preparation time if it were a meteor heading our way.

Wrong actually,

So the closest distance between the Earth and Pluto occurs when Earth is at its most distant from the Sun, and Pluto is at its closest. And the Sun, Earth and Pluto are lined up in a perfect line. When this happens, Pluto and Earth would be separated by 4.2 billion km. At their most distant, Earth would be at its furthest at the opposite side of the Sun from Pluto. At this point, Earth and Pluto would be separated by 7.5 billion km.

www.universetoday.com...