Talk:Planets beyond Neptune
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planets beyond Neptune article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Planets beyond Neptune is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 30, 2012.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Cause of supposed "Planet X" effects?Edit
- I have seen a theory that supposed "Planet X" effects are caused by the gravitational effect of the central mass of the Milky Way galaxy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Did 1987 Encyclopedia Britannica article predict Planet Nine and Renu Malhotra's Mars-sized perturber?Edit
- YouTube with context: https://youtube.ca/watch?v=HLZX0i3-vPs
- Image: http://www.nibiruupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/P10_Dark-Star.gif
This diagram that appears to be from an 1987 Encyclopedia (said to be Encyclopedia Britannica, with some quick digging found to be from some technology-orientated encyclopedia) article on the Pioneer probes depicts two objects: a "tenth planet" at 4.7 billion miles (~50 astronomical units) and a "dead star" at 50 billion miles (~538 astronomical units).
The article talks about how their combined gravitational forces perturb equally at the trajectories of the Pioneer probes. That is why I think none of them are Percival Lowell's ruled-out Planet X (which was believed to be tugging at Neptune rather than the probes).
As seen above, the diagram has been mostly cited by (seems-to-be) only believers of the Nibiru cataclysm, which most of us, including I myself, do not believe in. But I do find it interesting. The tenth planet's properties look a lot like the "tenth planet" theorized in 2017 by Renu Malhotra and Kat Volk, except that their theorized planet is 10 AU further away from the Sun than the "tenth planet" depicted (additionally, "10th planet" in the diagram was in terms of distance from the Sun and including Pluto; Malhotra's "tenth planet" was dubbed in order of being theorized with the further-out Planet Nine theorized in 2016).
The "tenth planet" could also alternatively refer to Eris, but was at the other side of the Sun (along with the closer Neptune and Uranus) at the time.
As for the "dead star", it could very well be Batygin and Brown's Planet Nine ("dead star" might mean gas or ice giant); with it being 538 AU away from the Sun in the diagram, it might fill in a part of Planet Nine's eccentric orbit with an estimated semi-major axis of between 400 to 800 AU.
- Leaving aside the whole Nibiru thing, that page image would need a heck of a lot more context. Where is it from? What was the point? What was it illustrating? Wikipedia is not an internet discussion forum. It is not our job to hunt down your sources for you. You think you have an interesting source to offer? Then find it. Serendipodous 01:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The source appears to exist, but it's not very credible. It's the 1987 edition of The Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia—available at archive.org here—and it's filled with uncredited diagrams and artist depictions of future technology. The type of stuff you find in "pop science" content made by non-experts. In this case, you can compare their image with the actual trajectories of Pioneer 10 and 11—see Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, or this diagram from NASA—and you'll notice plenty of discrepancies. The ISIE diagram gets the basic shapes kind of correct, but it excludes Jupiter and Saturn and how those fly-bys affected their trajectories. The encyclopedia text says nothing about a "Dead Star" or a "Tenth planet", which makes you wonder why they used that image at all. It's like they needed an image and just made one up. Or more likely, it's probably a fictitious entry placed as a copyright trap, which is common enough in encyclopedias. In any case, it certainly didn't come from NASA. Woodroar (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Varieties of EnglishEdit
I was going to revert this edit per WP:ENGVAR but figured I'd check to see which variety of English we're using here. As far as I can tell, the first constructive edit using any variety was this one. But now I see that Primefac has reverted. Which is fine, I don't think anyone's ever discussed this here. Thoughts on what to do at this point? Does it really matter? Woodroar (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am the main contributor to this page, and I use British English. Personally I find the whole issue stupid. If it can be read, who cares if a few "neighbor"s are spelled "neighbour"? Serendipodous 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)