Talk:Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience: Difference between revisions
Important note on Philolaus and galactic blackholes |
|||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
I thought this so-called "encyclopedia" was supposed to have a neutral point of view. The first paragraph of this article blows away that idea; as does the doggerel posted above. And what is with the constant use of "conspiracy theorists"? Are you also using the term "conincidence theorists" to put down people who think everything that happens is just a coincidence? No wonder Wikipedia is a laughingstock. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.23.21.81|71.23.21.81]] ([[User talk:71.23.21.81|talk]]) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I thought this so-called "encyclopedia" was supposed to have a neutral point of view. The first paragraph of this article blows away that idea; as does the doggerel posted above. And what is with the constant use of "conspiracy theorists"? Are you also using the term "conincidence theorists" to put down people who think everything that happens is just a coincidence? No wonder Wikipedia is a laughingstock. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.23.21.81|71.23.21.81]] ([[User talk:71.23.21.81|talk]]) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:So you are saying that the people who believe in Serpo are not conspiracy theorists? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
:So you are saying that the people who believe in Serpo are not conspiracy theorists? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Central Fire And Super-massive Black Holes== |
|||
Reading this section I think it has become clear that this postulate is almost correct. We do rotate around a "central fire" of sorts, a collapsed super sun or super-massive blackhole. |
|||
Perhaps Philolaus deserves a place in history as the first to identify such an object and an inclusion in the history of galactic super-massive blackholes? |
Revision as of 17:45, 14 April 2011
This is not the forum for discussing the supposed collision between Nibiru and Earth. To discuss that, please go to Talk:Nibiru collision. Any posts on that topic will be moved to that talk page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience at the Reference desk. |
Astronomy C‑class Bottom‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Mythology C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Paranormal C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Archives |
---|
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 downright 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)
- Good job too. I agree, this is the best way to handle the problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Serendipodous 15:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought this so-called "encyclopedia" was supposed to have a neutral point of view. The first paragraph of this article blows away that idea; as does the doggerel posted above. And what is with the constant use of "conspiracy theorists"? Are you also using the term "conincidence theorists" to put down people who think everything that happens is just a coincidence? No wonder Wikipedia is a laughingstock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying that the people who believe in Serpo are not conspiracy theorists? Serendipodous 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Central Fire And Super-massive Black Holes
Reading this section I think it has become clear that this postulate is almost correct. We do rotate around a "central fire" of sorts, a collapsed super sun or super-massive blackhole.
Perhaps Philolaus deserves a place in history as the first to identify such an object and an inclusion in the history of galactic super-massive blackholes?