Talk:List of hypothetical Solar System objects/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nemesis

Only reference I can find for Nemesis is to Sol's hypothetical companion star (which is what the Wiki entry discusses), so-called because of the theory that it periodically caused large numbers of comets to enter the inner solar system. I checked the (rather good) entry on hypothetical planets/moons/etc at The Nine Planets, and found nothing about a planet sharing Earth's orbit. (And I think this note is now longer than the stub article I'm commenting on.) Vicki Rosenzweig

• Yeah, that occurred to me just after I made the change. I know I've heard a name given for that hypothetical planet (which has, incidentally, been pretty well confirmed not to exist) but I can't remember it. -- April

Mesoamericans and Sumerians

-Wow! I thought I knew a lot about both MesoAmerican and Sumerian Anthropology. But I never knew the Sumerians and the Mayans intercommunicated over all those centuries. Do you have any cites for how the Mayans came to learn about Sumerian Astronomy?
-Also, I'm not sure "hypothetical" is the right word, since hypotheses belong to Science and you are discussing myth...unless the Sumerians actually observed the planet and recorded data we can use to say sensible things about the orbit.the librarian

Yes nice arguments towards mixing of the scientific and the mythologic. But since both Sumerian and Mayan astronomies are still so badly known to us, I guess we can afford this. It is a question too, who has taught who -- Sumerians Maya or Maya them? There are many cites all over and we just have to pick some right ones -- if there are any. In my opinion this is very serious study even in these 'modern' times... There are no evidences that these two civilizations intercommunicated between, but if you know for some -- just let me know. In the mean time let these topics stick together somehow, 'cause they are conected in a sense. Best regards. --XJamRastafire

I'm not sure if I agree with the "one of... sources" change with regards to Sitchin's book. I don't know of anyone that has written in support of him in any serious context. What sources besides Sitchin purport this? Tokerboy

Yes probably you might be right. I've meant original ancient sources which may be lost forever or to be restudied once more. And as I wanted to say for Librarian's argument why mixing scientific with mythologic that hypothetical would regard to something mythologic if this is hypothesized anew. Also Andy Lloyd is working on this topic ( http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ ) and I believe many more at professional observatories and at amateur's one. And Tom Van Flandern might be one of these 'astronomy holy grail seekers', if I express so. Must seen is also: ( http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/hypo.html ) But ... you can freely change my addition to the above source.--XJamRastafire

I will change it back, since neither of those sources seem to be arguing in favor of Sitchin's theory -- he proposes a very specific series of events which I've not heard anyone else support in any serious way. He used ancient sources as "proof", but these did not say "Marduk is a planet that crashed into another planet named Tiamat blah blah blah", they said "Marduk is a god that attacked a goddess named Tiamat blah blah blah". They are not sources corroborating his views anymore than an ancient document describing the spread of a plague is a source corroborating the germ theory of disease. Tokerboy

Yes off you go and make his day. But I'll still keep in mind that this might reveal someday out. Even his so crankish arguments and proofs. I respect all human efforts in a positive ways. --XJamRastafire 04:12 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Talk" Hypothetical Planet

A Scientist should not operate on "belief" but on temporary acceptance. This is often overlooked by members of the science community.

Many real breakthroughs come from the edge of exploration; it is as easy to become embarassed by ridiculing a hypothesis from the fringe as it is to expound it!

But nonetheless, "unproven" theories should lie away from the hallowed ground of an encyclopedia; this discussion alone is an adequate acknowledgement of Sitchin's ideas and research.

BC

Aren't conjectures ( assertions of validity, without proof ) a basic building block of many things? The untestable TOEs would be conjectures that people have built upon for theories that can be tested, provided that the conjecture is true.

phaeton

Is it advisable to wikify this word, given that it just directs to a disambig and there is no article on this meaning of the word?

The dab page contains the only explaination available, so it seems good enough. 132.205.45.148 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think this article is one huge mess?

It needs a drastic overhaul; perhaps to be merged with "Planet." Serendipodous 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the term "drastic overhaul" definatly describes the massive improvement done on this page. Thanks to everyone involved. Mrwuggs 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As usual you use words to desrible articles that are more suited to describing your own life, poopoodus. Everything sucks when you are around, yes that is true. 208.118.81.243 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've shifted the extrasolar lists to their own page

There already is a List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets page so I simply created a list of unconfirmed exoplanets page. Serendipodous 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with the inclusion of Zecharia Sitchin's "planets" in this article

I initially redrafted this article specifically to exclude his work from it, since I think the term "hypothetical" does imply a scientific hypothesis. Zecheria Sitchin's ideas are not based on anything approaching science. They are completely non-falsifiable, based entirely on subjective interpretation, and ultimately just a modern update of a myth, much in the same way that Frankenstein updated the Promethean myth. Serendipodous 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sitchin's ideas are based on scientific interpretations of findings in anthropology, which some people have disparaginly termed a "soft" science. However, though his findings may be "soft," this does not make them "bad science." Mrwuggs 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sitchin's ideas are not based on anthropology. They're based overwhelmingly on historical linguistics with a miniscule dusting of archaeology. And, as you can see from this site, which was written by someone with a PhD in the field in which Sitchin claims to be an expert (Sitchin in fact does not have a degree in Semitic languages such as Akkadian or in Sumerian), no scholar of ancient Semitic languages has ever positively reviewed Sitchin's ideas. Sitchin's theory only makes sense if you accept his own personal reworking of ancient Akkadian and Sumerian grammar, which is not supported by any other scholarly work on the subject, including those by the Sumerians themselves (The Sumerians were an advanced enough culture to have their own dictionaries and grammars). Most of the citations on this page are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you can find me an accredited, acknowledged, peer-reviewed journal on historical linguistics, archaeology, or (and this I seriously doubt) astronomy that gives credence to Sitchin, I'd be interested in seeing it. Serendipodous 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, let's try and define the concept of POV here

If we are going to look outside science, then every kook, visionary, contactee and ancient priest who had some idea at some point about what lies in the sky should also be included. This article would never end. Why should Sitchin's ideas get favoured status over all the other non-scientific ideas out there? What makes him so special? Should we mention Nancy Leider's Planet X, which every net loony thought was going tocrash into us in 2003? Should we include Lilith? What about Counter Earth? Should we include Rahu and Ketu from Hindu mythology? Should we include Orrion, the planet George Adamski claimed aliens took him to in the 50s? Should we include the planet around Zeta Reticuli, supposedly the homeworld of the aliens who abducted Betty and Barney Hill? Serendipodous 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shown not to exist?

If there's a shred of truth in this statement...

A moon of Saturn, supposedly discovered in 1905, but later shown not to exist after all

...this still has to be the worst possible way to state it. How can something be "shown not to exist"? rowley 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive 1