Talk:Vulcan (hypothetical planet)

Article

I think we should change this article to Vulcan (astronomy) -- since neither of the two Vulcan's in question are really planets. --Ed Poor

Corrected the paragraph on the perihelion precession of Mercury. Classical perturbation theory was completely capable of predicting the advance itself. The famous 43 arc seconds is the difference between the observed value and the predicted value, and is a high order anomaly. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vulcan is to a planet

it is a planet Nate1028 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan revived section

The first paragraph of this section seems fairly important, as to why it is hard to look at the Sun - should it be nearer the top of the article? Orange Goblin 07:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek and Vulcan

IIRC in the episode of the original series where a spaceman from the late 20th century ends up on the Enterprise, he asks Mr Spock if the latter comes from Vulcan-near-the-Sun. A passing mention of this passing mention could be included here.

Jackiespeel 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) There are TWO other articles on Star Trek and Vulcan (Vulcan Star Trek & Vulcan Star Trek Planet--so I'm going to delete the Star Trek references as they they come off as totally off the wall in an article about our own Solar System.Warren Platts (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

General Relativity

"This hypothesis has now been rendered obsolete by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity."

General Relativity is a theory,not a fact,it has not been proven,so can the hypothesis be rendered obsolete? Dudtz 10/5/06 7:24 PM EST

that is beyond silly for too many reasons to list. --Deglr6328 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

SOHO

Shouldn't something be said of the virtual absolute impossibility of vulcan since the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory observations of the past decade have seen nothing in the way of stable orbits inside Mercury's?--Deglr6328 10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Revived section

"Courten believed that an intra-Mercurial planetoid between 130 and 800 kilometres in diameter was orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 0.1 astronomical unit. Other images on his eclipse plates led him to postulate the existence of an asteroid belt between Mercury and the Sun."

130-800 kilometers... ok, now that just dosn;'t add up, how would it survive that close in.... how big is the earth?--Jakezing (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrological/astronomical symbol

Did this have an astrological/astronomical symbol? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

According to [1] there is an astronomical symbol. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be on at [2] , viewable with [3] 76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the Fishhook of Doubt. —Tamfang (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vulcan exists

Ancient text says it does.

yes, Einstein had a orbit by mercury that is different than that of the sun. Basically, a large red giant lets say its vulcan, creates the solar system by strangling the sun. Lets say it runs out of heat. It then has to turn into a cycling comet or planet which intervenes every now and then 26 million years.it creates pacific rim. Lets say saturn throws mercury there. Thats Vulcan! truth hurts.

if u understand the systematic order and mechanics of planets via light then u will believe there is indeed a vulcan star for creation. eg uranus, neptune comes first gets thrown back, saturn comes in, jupiter becomes first throws saturn back. saturn runs into uranus,causes neptune to sink. asteroid belt moves via vulcan. then mars is pelted by rocks from jupiter, earth marries the moon. inner moons like venus come 8 to 2nd via saturn jupiter. pluto becomes a moon of neptune? Saturn would be alongside neptune as the 5th and 6th planet still if not for uranus. Uranus ran into Saturn after they did the nasty or merged and traded moons, basically. Jupiter shouldnt have outraced saturn in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, i wouldnt trust the internet, i ran through a few charts of the planets rotating foward into the sun! lol.

"Unreliable"

The article is at pains to denominate a larger number of sightings (even by trained astronomers) as "unreliable."

It might be more neutral to say these detections have not been duplicated since (year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to science to prove that something does not exist. Science requires verifiability. -- Kheider (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't fool all of the people all of the time

So what was it? What caused people to think naked eye stars next to solar eclipses are planet(s) without checking the catalogs? What could've caused so many nonexistant transits be seen by scientific men? If it was just mistaken identifications, which should cause random "orbit" distribution then why'd it take so long for explanations and rationalizations of the inconsistancies to fall apart? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)