Talk:Nemesis (hypothetical star)

Distance units

Surely, you mean 24 billion kilometers? --Anon

Richard Muller has postulated an orbit around the sun that extends from 1-3 light-years. One light year is approx. 10 trillion kilometers.

Note: US citisens often mess billions and milliards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragnik (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dating of theory

Does this theory predate or postdate Isaac Asimov's book Nemesis? In either case, should a reference to it be made? — Jor (Talk) 14:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The theory came first. --Dragons flight 23:30, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

But star wars came even before that. so perhaps the "death star" mentioning is incorrect?

A reference to the book is probably not needed, although it is about a planetary system around a red dwarf star called nemesis the star is not a companion star to our own. Allywilson 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have found it already?

I'm little initiated in astronomy, but I am interested. I have a question: If Nemesis exists, it is the second closest star to Earth, and however small, much bigger than any planet, and however weak, emitting at least some light itself. How is it then possible that we can't see it with the most advanced telescopes we have got? --Caesarion 10:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We don't know the movements of about 3,000 nearby dwarf stars (it takes special parallax studies to know star movement). So if Nemesis exists, we probably have seen it, but wouldn't know (yet) that it is orbiting our sun.

69.171.160.244 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked it out myself: If Nemesis exists we can see it with even a small telescope; we just have to identify a star (of 3,000 candidates), e.g. by checking its distance to Earth with the parallax method. --Caesarion 10:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some people have also proposed that it could be a brown dwarf, which would make it much harder to detect. --bob rulz 08:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Professor Muller says that it could be hidden behind a cloud or something...

I have this question: what rules out the possibility that Nemesis is a black hole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.57.98 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... if there was a black hole in the Solar System, we would have to ask what the hell created it and why it hasn't been sucking in matterial, black holes don't throw things out, it brings them in.--Jakezing (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, black holes would kick things out just as well as red dwarfs. Also, they don't just suck everything in, if you're far away they act just like any other object of their mass. For example, if you magically replaced the sun with a solar mass black hole, the Earth wouldn't be sucked it, it would still orbit just fine. However, the question of how it got there would be a rather big one. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass

What is the supposed mass of Nemesis? And where would the Sun-Nemesis barycenter be located and why we haven't noticed the movement of the Sun yet?

That would depend on its exact orbit, but it would have to be an order of magnitude less massive than the sun. The effects of gravity quickly decline over distance, so the barycentre can't be very far from the sun (I'd guess within the orbit of Mercury, but I haven't done any calculations). More importantly, the wobble must have a period equal to that of Nemesis' orbit (i.e. 27 Ma). Add in the movement caused by the all the other objects orbiting the sun and it becomes nearly impossible to measure something like that. Emilius V (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

magnitude

The magnitude estimates don't make sense and are best omitted. Any object between magnitudes 7 and 12 anywhere in the sky would have been discovered a long time ago already (through proper motion surveys or ongoing asteroid searches). And by the way, "at least magnitude 7" is understood to mean 7th magnitude or brighter (ie, 7 or 6 or 5, etc). --Curps 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The contention, and I have only Muller somewhat dated word on this, is not that it hasn't been observed, but rather that the distance surveys are incomplete over a significant fraction of the sky (especially far from the plane of the solar system) so that the fact that it is very close has not previously been recognized. It should have said magnitude 7 or dimmer. It is also worth noting that the thing would be moving much slower than asteroids or comets, so most of the surveys designed to see such objects would overlook Nemesis. --Dragons flight 16:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but anything of magnitude 7 anywhere in the sky would have been discovered more than a century ago. In astronomical terms, this would be an extremely bright object. Many very slow-moving stars have been discovered through proper motion surveys, for instance Barnard's Star is of magnitude 9.5. Most of the nearest stars to the solar system have been discovered through such proper-motion surveys.

This is incorrect. There are several thousand catalogued red dwarves which have never been parallaxed before. These dwarf stars tend to get shoved aside as small and boring, uninteresting nobodies. However, recently a red dwarf was discovered a little over 7 light years away, and is now the 3rd closest star system to our sun.

The distance to Teegarden's star has been corrected to 12.6 light years. Therefore, if Nemesis is similar (in brightness) to that star and its distance is 1 lightyear, it should be 12.6² = 158.76 times as bright. That results in a magnitude difference of 5.5, or a magnitude of 9.9 for Nemesis. Icek 12:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't say exactly what magnitude Nemesis would have to be to remain undiscovered until today, but it would undoubtedly have to be considerably fainter than 12th (probably around 15th magnitude or fainter, given the recent discovery of Teegarden's Star). -- Curps 17:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, if it exists, it almost certainly is already in the catalogs and has been for a long time, but many stars in the catalogs have never had their distance measured. Of course, I would agree with you that it is mostly likely considerably dimmer. However without someone authoritative source to refer to, we can't really overturn Muller's statement that it is most likely a red dwarf between magnitude 7 and 12 [1]. --Dragons flight 18:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

If it exists at all, it's a brown dwarf IMO. If it were an actual star at a distance like that, even a red dwarf, I don't think we would have missed it so far. Even a red dwarf at one light-year is going to be exceptionally bright by red dwarf standards and likely to raise suspicion. (A 7th magnitude red dwarf? If there were such an object, you better believe the first thing I'd do is check it out.) On the other hand, an old brown dwarf at that distance might not be any brighter than a Kuiper Belt object is, and easy to miss.

A red dwarf at 1 light year could easily be 10th or 11th magnitude - probably lower - and there are various ways to potentially hide it. I'm sure that precovery images can find it well, well back, but there are lots of stars that are poorly studied or essentially unstudied. Brown dwarf? Or just planet? Also possible ~ I've heard it suggested that objects as small as mars can create the effect (they can, at least, create the Kuiper cliff). WilyD 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked with Celestia, running what the brightness of the M9V red dwarf star DENIS 1048-3956 would be at a distance of one light-year. That star, which is probably a good match for what Nemesis would be like, would be magnitude 11.7 at that distance, and there's so many objects at that magnitude that we'd likely not notice it unless we measured its distance. Based on that, I'd say Muller's idea of what Nemesis is, is sound. user: Jsc1973

That assumes that there is a Nemesis, which is speculative to say the least. Note that a brown dwarf would be fainter still. However, Hipparcos is complete down to ~11 mag and parallax of three arcseconds would be obvious in current sky surveys, which routinely go down to 15th magnitude over the entire sky (similar to the case of Teegarden's star), so we have an additional three magnitudes, which push any Nemesis firmly into the L-dwarf category. We have verged into original research. Celestia is either a blessing or a curse. Michaelbusch 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming for the purposes of the check that there is a Nemesis. I had no idea than an M-dwarf so close would be quite that dim. Agree that it doesn't belong in the article though. Can't help but think we won't find it anytime soon if it's a brown dwarf. It would have been cooling for the last 4.5 billion years. Jsc1973 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The star(if it exists)I consider is unlikely to be of a magnitude as high as 7 but could be dimmer, the 12th magnitude seems reasonable. Saying that because it hasn't been discovered yet so must be very dim is innacurate many known stars have not had their distance measured as Dragons Flight points out. I also believe it is to be a brown dwarf, an M-type star would be highly unusual to go unnoticed at such close proximity. I guess the WISE mission will tell us for sure. Allywilson 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, without verifiable sources we can't speculate much, but yeah - there's no way such a thing burns Hydrogen. Deuterium, maybe, but even that seems unlikely. A few Jupiter masses or less, maybe as little as an earth or such ... WilyD 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes well but then that bbrings a bigger point, we wouldn't be here if the sun was a black hole...--

Jakezing (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Astronomers say that you need a parallax observation (measurement from two geographically separated telescopes at the same time) to tell if a nearby dwarf star is co-orbiting our sun. There are a number of candidates but more work needs to be done to prove or disprove it. Additionally if it is a brown dwarf (barely warm or even cold semi-star, also called a 'dark star'-- which is a failed star that was just a little too small to have fired up in the first place) then it would be harder to detect.

Dark stars have been detected co-orbiting other stars but they are not easy to detect (they have to be caught passing in front of a live star and temporarily dimming it's light). Such occurrences are rare, but have been observed and verified by astronomers watching thousands of other star systems, so we know there are some dark stars out there.

69.171.160.183 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of nearby (within a few hundred light years) mapped stars (especially red dwarf stars) where astronomers haven't yet tracked their trajectory (path through space). There may be even more as yet undiscovered brown dwarfs in our stellar neighborhood. So it's very possible that we haven't found it yet, but couold in the near future.

198.59.46.5 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Death Star

Star Wars came out in 1977 and this article reports that Nemesis was first proposed in 1984. If Star Wars came first, and it was already huge by 1984, how could the Death Star nickname have "fallen out of usage due to its fictional use in the Star Wars universe." --[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You probably need to ask User:L. who is the one that added that material, but if I were to make a random guess, perhaps some people wanted to refer to it as the Death Star and did for a while, but that it never caught on because the public at large had already equated Death Star to Star Wars. --Dragons flight 21:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why does the phrase "Nemesis (Death Star)" refer/link to the Star Wars Space Station? 122.2.111.174 (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the term "dark star" is correct and from what I gather "death star" as part of a conversation concerning Nemesis is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.134.2 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for either of our definitions of "Dark star" WilyD 04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

abrupt outer bound for Kuiper Belt as evidence

The shape of Saturn's rings, the abrupt outer bound for the Kuiper Belt and observations of two nearby stars are offered as possible evidence for the existence of Nemesis. [2]

Said evidence is sketchy at best.Michaelbusch 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is certainly a much more widely accepted explaination, anyhow. WilyD 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding competing theory

I have removed all of your changes to the Nemesis (star) article. While the Binary Research Institute proposes the existence of a companion to the sun they do so in a much shallower orbit and do not identify it with Muller's Nemesis (a name that never even appears on their website). Hence their theories don't really belong in the Nemesis article, but perhaps you could start an article about the BRI? Dragons flight 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't even know they existed until something on Slashdot showed up this morning. They however did cite Muller regarding his comet work. If you feel it all needs to be explained under a new article, that would make some sense.
  • That's actually a weird place to cite Muller since he actually doesn't believe in the "belt of comets", as he generally chalks that result up to observational bias and statistical error in judging the significance of the enhancement. I do think though that any discussion of a companion with ~20 kyr orbit needs to happen in a different article since Muller's Nemesis proposal has a 26 Myr orbit, and hence is a very different object. Dragons flight 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll copy-paste this to Nemesis discussion for future guidance & I or someone else will work on this later. Cwolfsheep 19:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It appears from their website that the founders are some form of crypto-danikenites, attempting to link a companion star with ancient mythologies of 'golden ages' and 'gods' from the sky who walked among men. At best, they are pseudo-scientists or creationists, at worst, UFO cargo-cultists. The problem is that this sort of topic is likely to attract many fringe elements due to its tones of chiliasm and millenialism. The 26 million year time frame doesn't meet their ideas of recent "hidden" human history, so they need a shorter orbital period to make it work. If they knew their science, they'd know how relatively easy it would be for a technological civilization to travel a mere 1-1.5 light years (the estimated current distance of Nemesis, according to Muller) via fission or fusion pulse detonation propulsion (aka Project Orion and Daedalus) in 20 years. Entirely attainable. If humanity knew how close the nearest star was (if Nemesis exists), the space program would become a major global priority, so there are also political undertones to this topic as well.

Page name

Disambiguation should be kept as simple as is necessary to distinguish the topic from related topics with which it might be confused. As far as I know there are no other stars (real or hypothetical) that bear the name Nemesis, and hence labelling it (hypothetical star) rather than (star) is unnecessary. Dragons flight 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. It must be distinguished from the asteroid, however.

Requested move

Nemesis (hypothetical star) → Nemesis (star) – As above, parenthetical names should be as simple as is necessary to avoid existing conflicts. They are not intended as a form of categorization. In this case, (star) is more than sufficient to the distinguish the topic, and Nemesis (star) is the title it has had since its inception. I tried to move it back, but another user reverted, so I am listing this at RM. Dragons flight 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I disagree with both names. The hypothesis is for Nemesis to be a brown dwarf. By definition, a brown dwarf is substellar and should not be called a "star." By analogy, a dwarf planet is not a planet. Consider the name "Nemesis (hypothesis)" or something like that.Teply (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more info

Can there be more information added about this hypothesis' reception by the broader astonomical community, and any objection to the hypothesis be added. Basejumper2 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

General Astronomical community has agreed Nemesis is a load of Bullshit.--Jakezing (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to introduction

I suggest that

"The existence of this star was originally postulated in an attempt to explain an inferred periodicity in the rate of biological extinction in the geological record."

be replaced with:

"This star was originally postulated to exist as part of a hypothesis to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record."

-- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no criticism section. The periodicity of extinctions itself is contested in the literature. Granting periodicity, it is further contested that the Nemesis hypothesis is an adequate explanation. The geological and astronomical evidence in favor of the hypothesis are virtually nonexistent. There should be a criticism section. I'll add one once time permits, but I'd appreciate it if someone could start on that now. Auspex1729 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the balance tag. I don't see anything in the article insisting that this hypothesis is true, or that anyone takes it seriously. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Science or Nature recently (2001-3, I believe) ran an article on spheroidal objects on the moon that seemed to be well associated with the nemesis theory. They were supposed to have been created following asteroid pummelings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA to next theorized effect on Earth?

Has anyone in the scientific community (including Muller by chance?) given any estimated timeframe in which we could be due for another volley of asteroids? If so, perhaps someone could construct a timeline chart showing the spans between extinction events & where we currently rest before the next proposed event? I believe such a visual representation will greatly aid some readers in understanding the timeframes between events and where we are currently estimated to be. Obviously "Nemesis" is neither proven nor disproven, however I believe it is generally accepted that there exists a pattern within the timeline of extinction events here on Earth. What say you? ~User:Rayne Nov. 10th, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.80.161 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

21 million years is the ETA mentioned in the article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly enough time for me to do all the things I want to do. Very depressing.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar theory

Should a link to the Nibiru, Hopi Blue Star, and the Egyptian "Destroyer" be added here? Perhaps there's a place to discuss these theories as 1 in the same? Something IS coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.188.237 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that none of these are scientific theories. Nemesis is a hypothetical object whose existence is supported by some data (and even that is questionable) but which has never been observed. Nibiru and those other "theories" are pseudoscience at best, based on no evidence, are untestable, etc. It would be like adding a section on homeopathy to the article on medicine. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very important distinction. There is science and data behind the Nemesis theory (correct or not), whereas the other theories have no science behind them.

Science, not creative and sensational blogging, should be the reason for inclusion in a serious astronomy article.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article

There was a new good article on the subject in Space Daily on March 12, 2010: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Getting_WISE_About_Nemesis_999.html

Volkermonterey (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gliese 710

Does anyone know the trajectory or the orbital parameters of Gliese 710? Could that star actually be Nemesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharri1073 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the infobox for Gliese? It's only, what, 70ly away.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he's getting at this: Gliese is currently ~63ly away, but (according to the article) within 1.4mil years it will be a mere 1.1ly away, and this could possibly be something regular rather than a "fly by". In any case, there's nothing in the article on Gliese 710 suggesting that it's the real culprit, if there even is one. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Appears I need to do more than a flyby. :( My understanding of stellar dynamics, tho, suggests Gliese is still a real longshot, since it would be on a loooong orbit away; a "death star" would have to be a local object. (IIRC, Isaac postulated a brown dwarf.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even if Gliese were the culprit, it would probably require a fairly large black hole (or some other massive object) in the Local Bubble that Gliese could rotate around in order to cause the (supposed) periodicity needed to cause these extinctions. Of course, I've never heard of such an object, and I'm sure we'd know about it as it would affect us just as much. I'm calling this myth busted.  :) Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Objects farther from the sun than about a light year are certainly not bound, at least on multi-orbit timescales. Anything at 50+ lightyears is a certainty not to be bound. If something at that distance were bound, interactions with other stars, or even the galactic tide, would unbind it. Typically, the distance between stars is a parsec, any bound objects are going to be substantially closer than that (i.e. look at the extent of the Oort Cloud, which goes to ~10000 AU (or maybe less). If you want to speculate, run wild, but the obvious constraint is this: If there's a Nemesis, Hipparcos doesn't have a parallax for it, so it's dimmer than v = 11.5. WilyD 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was clear right up to that answer. ;D "certainly not bound"? And v<=11.5? Do you rule out a dim brown dwarf beyond c 10KAU? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean, anything farther than ~100 000 AU from the sun isn't gravitationally bound to the sun, it's orbit is going to be a hyperbola, and we shan't see it again for a long time (i.e. never). I don't know brown dwarf evolutionary tracks, so I can't say anything to what the v band magnitude of a brown dwarf at 10^5 AU is going to be. It might be low, and then you might need to worry about whether it'd show up in other surveys at longer wavelengths. But yeah, anything with v >= 11.5 at a distance of less than a parsec would be obvious in Hipparcos data. WilyD 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx. ;D Given v =briteness (in one form/another), I would expect a brown dwarf would be spotted that close, too. (IIRC, Hipparcos hadn't flown when Isaac wrote Nemesis, & he'd certainly have known about a negative result: i.e, he'd never have placed a brown dwarf close if he'd known as a fact there couldn't be one so close.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

"Nemesis a red star or brown dwarf orbiting the sun"? If there was a star moving around our sun, our sun would be moving too. But if it was, we'd notice it by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CondensedOcean (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if it was in a wide orbit (the suns wobble would be extremely slow then). Only close-in objects, or super-massive stars would otherwise cause an easily detectable wobble.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hey wikipedia, check out this link with new evidence from the WISE infrared monitoring system. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.4584v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.22.43 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

The new image looks like shit! The previous one also wasn't the greatest image, but it did look much better. tildetildetildetilde—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.84.100 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article suffers from misinformation, no references, bad math

This article lacks references that are outside the realm of the researchers who are forwarding these hypotheses. If this was in fact verifiable, I want to see verifiable sources, as in actual, reputable scientific sources, not just from the guys that thought it up.

Also, the line "The last major extinction event was about 5 million years ago, so Muller posits that Nemesis is likely 1 to 1.5 light years away at present, and even has ideas of what area of the sky it might be in (supported by Yarris, 1987), near Hydra, based on a hypothetical orbit derived from original apogees of a number of atypical long-period comets that describe an orbital arc meeting the specifications of Muller's hypothesis" is wrong, as the last major extinction event was not 5 million years ago, it was 65 million years ago. (the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event) This sentence, if allowed to continue existing on Wikipedia, should also be edited for clarity.

...Which also puts to rest the unverified claim that "The average time interval between extinction events was determined as 26 million years." earlier in the article. The last major extinction prior to the most recent was the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event, 205 million years ago, and before that, 251 million years ago, and then 375 million years ago, so it's impossible that this article's data is correct.We undergo many small-scale extinctions that are calculated in the 10-100 thousand year range, which also means this article is faulty.

There are 5 things taken from reference #5, which is a magazine article. That's not wikipedia worthy. The author, Leslie Mullen, seems to write a lot of bullshit articles, this one being no exception.

Reference 6 is just some guy spouting shit.

Basically, for a scientific article, it's lacking science. Although not surprising, as this is a heated topic in the conspiracy theory world, and I smell trouble afoot. I think this article is tinged in the favor of conspiracy theorists, and I move for it's deletion, or a heavy edit until real proof is available and referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettosauce (talk • contribs) 14:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reference you were asking for--

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.4584v1

98.245.171.33 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has many science references. It's never too late to learn how to read carefully instead of reacting.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Biblioteca Pleyades

The edit where I removed reference to the unreliable source Biblioteca Pleyades was removed and flagged as vandalism. Ignoring the failure on the part of Trekphiler to assume good faith, I still think this edit should be reinstated.

For the unreliability of the source, observe that their home page contains the text "Everything on this Site has been obtained on the Internet," and that the article linked at no point actually cites anything that it claims. Browsing around, one can find various conspiracy theory articles on Biblioteca Pleyades. Its credibility is highly suspect at best.

Given that the linked passage seems to essentially exist for no purpose other than to cast doubt on the theory that the hypothesized star Nemesis (a popular astronomical source of crackpot theories) doesn't exist, and the propensity of Biblioteca Pleyades to publish crackpot theories, I removed the edit based on the assumption that Wikipedia generally doesn't make itself the home of crackpot theories and unreliable sources. But since my edit was reverted and flagged as vandalism, I felt I should post an explanation before I go ahead and remove the reference again--unless someone can find an actual, reliable source, of course. 24.18.187.152 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Rothorpe's edit, which was reverting the removal of (what appeared to be) referenced material without any sort of indication why. I'm glad that you brought this to the Talk page, however, because you were absolutely right in removing it. I just took out the whole section, because it's really unsupported by anything remotely resembling a reliable source. This article is fringy enough without us relying on the "evidence" of quasi-astrology sites. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an edit summary such as 'rm fringe theory' was lacking. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nemesis in shows?

Nemesis was in the show Sailor Moon and dragon ball z both show Nemesis was doing chaos on earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

new nemesis news

new news http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=231641 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

big problom in the nemesis page

50% of pepol says Tyche is not nemesis but the oter hafe says it is so is nemesis & Tyche the same ting, if not wee need a new page for the new hypothetical Tyche.