Talk:Hypothetical planetary object (non-scientific)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nibiru

Does anybody know What `if`Anythink,the-are Goverments Planning with regards to 2012`NIBIRU` ??, or are WE just going to be left to SORT OURSELVES OUT ??...

We shall look at the facts of the ancients who were free of media and control...the best telescopes are owned by the govertment....i believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.212.134 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the government will do anything but try to keep us, the people, distracted from the truth.Girlhikingmountain 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) S.S.

[edit] Neutrality

This page is a mess and filled with copyrighted, NPOV info. Can someone please tag it?? FluxFuser (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is articles like this that give wikipedia a bad name. Needs to be flagged for cleanup/deletion. 219.101.94.80 (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here indicating why the POV template is on this article. What specifically about this article is POV? I'm removing it. If someone wants to come here to the talk page and discuss the issues they have with the article and how those issues can be addressed, it can be readded. Neitherday (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nibiru/Eris

Okay this is no longer a hypothetical planet. Nibiru hs multiple names like Planet X and Eris. You can find facts about it on clips from the news, papers, internet. It can only be seen from the southern point. It's beginning to be known now to more and more people. Why aren't there any facts posted from photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2silly (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Eris is neither Planet X nor Nibiru. It is too small to have anything like the gravitational effects hypothesised by either planet. Serendipodous 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've added a mention of Zeta Reticuli

I don't believe a word of it but I think it has at least as much right to be here as Sitchin's planets. Serendipodous 08:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NASA/JPL link

Why was the link to official data related to the finding of the 10th planet from NASA? If someone can post information regarding theoretical interpretation of the Sumerian text, than I think relevant and real true data should be referenced such as NASA's article, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html which also states is about the size of Pluto, which yes was declassified as a planet, but still the classification of the 10th planet has not yet be fully disclosed but they claim themselves finding the 10th planet. The external link should be reinstated to users interested in learning more about Nimibu which supposedly is Planet X, 10th planet etc. Not only that, but where is your reference for stating it is called Eris? Not in one single word on the article does it state Eris. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so far it seems to be run by amateurs not interested in facts.

The1who (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That entry dates from the time Eris's discovery was first announced in 2005. In their desire to link themselves to the discovery of a "10th planet", the Jet Propulsion Laboratory jumped the gun in writing that article before Eris's identity had been formally settled. Since no one knew if Eris was a planet or not, its name was not officially declared until September 2006. Before then it was known by its provisional designation 2003UB313, as you see in the article. Since the IAU ruled on the matter, Eris has been officially classified as a dwarf planet, not a planet. Regardless of its designation, Eris is neither Nibiru, nor Planet X, nor even hypothetical. See Definition of planet, 2006 definition of planet and Eris (dwarf planet) for more information. Serendipodous 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NIBIRU PICTURE

Hello I´m from Mexico, there are a lot of videos in youtube about the supposed aproaching of Niburu to the Earth in 2012, and in one video they said that today the planet is only visible in very southern lattitude, and it shows pictures of the Sun taken in Australia, and appears a small bright reddish point next to the sun, and they alleged that is Nibiru. I´m very sceptical about it and I thought that those pictures were fake. But today I was chatting with a friend who travels around the world because his work, and I remember that he went to Chile a few months ago. I asked him about the Sun when he stayed there, and I started to tell him about Nibiru, at the same time he was also chatting with some of his Chilean friends and one of them who lives in Viña del Mar took a photo of the Sun a few days ago. The Chilean guy remember that when he looked at the picture a strange bright point appeared next to the Sun and he send us the picture. That guy didn´t know anything about the Nibiru issue, he thought that it was a defect of the shooting. The object in the picture really surprised me, that definately isn´t Venus and neither the Moon. I´m starting to believe, what in the hell is this???? http://es.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30cm32h&s=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.10.72 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like a camera artifact. Notice the angel-shaped blotch in the middle of the Sun. Serendipodous 10:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Rubbish

This article is absolute rubbish. I don't know why schlock like this even deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. Are we to dedicate an article to every "New Age" doomsday prophecy out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.91.214 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, if this article goes, then all these planets end up in the real hypothetical planet article. Serendipodous 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

real hypothetical planets may have some real basis. This article seems to have been written to legitimise the various doomsday prophets and new-age types. More and more scientists and teachers have to explain that these things are not truths. Let's dum this rubish 82.172.99.137 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Martin

If this article goes, then all of Sitchin's followers, all the Planet X doomsdayers, all the Mormons, astrologers and loonies who believe these planets exist will continuously add these planets to the hypothetical planet article, and there will be little means to prevent them, since "hypothetical" has a meaning outside of science. I tried it the other way, and this is the only way that works. Serendipodous 15:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)