Talk:Tyche (hypothetical planet)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Appearance of this planet

Would this planet excist of solid hydrogen, since the melting temperature of hydrogen is 14 Kelvin? (OP)

Possibly you might find solid hydrogen at its core, the astrophysicists in question claim a surface (hard to define) temperature of around 200.15K, now the core would be at greater pressure, so possibly you might get solid hydrogen. But this gas giant is suspected a relatively mild temperature of -73 celsius, compare this to the coldest temperatures on earth which are in the region of -89 celsius. This is all assuming the planet even exists.Larryisgood (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this is a fully hypothetical situation. But about the temperature: How would the temperature of this planet be so high? The Oort Cloud isn't even reaching 10 Kelvin, if I'm right? How would this hypothetical planet get (or have gotten) it's energy to stay at that relatively high temperature? (OP again)
I'm only an undergrad astrophysics student but I can give it a try. We can probably rule out any greenhouse effects like those that give Venus it's high temperature, since it's much too far away from the sun, and we can assume that since the mass is MUCH to low to even achieve brown dwarf status, that it's not producing its own energy through nuclear interactions. If a gas cloud were to collapse to something the size of a 4 jupiter mass object, its gravitational potential energy is converted to heat energy through interparticle collisions, and would be pretty significant. I can't give you the figures, but the energy would be more than enough to account for the kind of temperature that Tyche is postulated to have.Larryisgood (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenses need work

According to this article the evidence regarding the planet has not yet been presented, and won't be till WISE's data comes out in April, yet the article suggests the evidence has already been presented. (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The original paper

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud (arXiv:1004.4584 / PDF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Planets beyond Neptune

Nine Twelve years these two have been promoting their planet. In that time the evidence for its existence has not increased one iota. But suddenly they get a namecheck in the Daily Mail and this thing is notable enough for an article of its own? Planets beyond Neptune features several more hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. What about Mike Brown's trans-Neptunian planet? What about Patryk Lakawka's planet? Those arguably have more evidence to back them up. Serendipodous 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was all over CNN this morning as well... (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a whole lot of new Gscholar hits [1] ... only some Gnews hits [2] -- (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
According to NY Daily News [3], it's actually been 12 years... (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right. The source does say 1999. But my point still stands. Serendipodous 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not unsympathetic to your position. Among other things, we see a much more skeptical article today at Why don't you put up a merge proposal, and let's work the process on this one, as opposed to taking perhaps over-bold unilateral action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Changed post to a merge request. Serendipodous 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was redirected to Planets beyond Neptune on 15 Feb 2011 by Serendipodous (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this should be a redirect and not its own article? Kingturtle = (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune is the catch-all page for any and all trans-Neptunian planets. It has had a subsection on Matese and Whitmire's planet since it was created. Right now, there isn't enough new information to justify a new article; their planet, like all the other planets on this page, is still just speculation. If we actually found it, that would change the game somewhat. But we haven't yet. Indeed there isn't really any reason to assume that the WISE data will reveal evidence of it. Other than some extra media attention and a catchy name, I don't really see any difference between this and their dozen or so other attempts to publicise their idea over the last nine years.Serendipodous 09:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This also somewhat reminds me of the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Are planet candidates notable?. -- Kheider (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this merge. The existence of this article is reflective of WP's popmedia bias. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think I also support a merge, but only after the media hype has slowed down in a week. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That is very much a practical answer. Users are going to expect an article with background material while this is hot news. When it dies down, the information can be properly merged to a background article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Absolutely agree. Not every wild-eyed hypothesis needs an encyclopedic article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to develop this article to see where it will go. Given how some people never read beyond a blog, and the fact some people are comparing Tyche to Nemesis, I am now inclined to think his article should stay for now. Nemesis (star) was hypothesized in 1984 to explain mass extinctions every 27 million years, where-as Tyche is more of a Jovian-mass best-fit to a perceived statistical fluke in the orbit of comets with a semi-major axis > 10,000AU. -- Kheider (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Merges lose too much information. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge, if you take a look at the kind of traffic this page has been getting, I think it would be obtuse to merge it as a subsection of another article. So long as the article makes clear (as it does) that this is an hypothesized planet, and that it's existence has only really been proposed by two astronomers and need much more evidence (which the article does), then I don't see why we would remove the article. People come to Wikipedia to find out more about a topic, and if the article is removed we are doing them a disservice in the name of officious bureaucracy. Larryisgood (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Much as it pains me, I have to conclude that this topic has gained an undeserved notability thanks to chicanery on the part of its proponents. I am outraged by Matetse and Whitmire's actions- to substitute actual scientific acceptance with media hysteria (especially given the still-ongoing insanity over the Nibiru collision) shows a lack of probity so extreme as to be almost criminal. But nonetheless, however reprehensible their tactics may have been, they appear to have worked. Serendipodous 12:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the existence of Tyche seems unlikely, we still have pages for Big Foot, the Nibiru collision (as you said, serendipodous) etc. It's important enough to have an article where the reality of the situation is set out, and any connection to a doomsday scenario is rebutted. Larryisgood (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - it's basically just another hypothetical trans-Neptunian planet, with the media-friendly name taken from classical mythology. Then again even if it exists it is doubtful it could be called Tyche anyway, as that name has already been used. (Yes I am aware that there are a couple of cases where name collisions have occurred, e.g. 52 Europa and Jupiter II Europa, but that kind of thing is generally frowned upon these days.) Icalanise (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - assuming that the name is changed to Tyche (hypothetical planet). The article seems fairly well-written, about an hypothesis which has achieved some notority (deserved or not); I thus think that the material is interesting enough to be preserved, but that it should not be incorporated into Planets beyond Neptune#Tyche. Right now, the Tyche article is a "main" article to that short section, and I find this fairly adequate. I would not mind similar main articles about the Kuiper cliff or the Halo of planet hypotheses, either. In fact, to my mind, hypothetical celestal objects, which are seriously suggested by astronomers, are much more interesting than diverse fictious objects. If we very clearly distinguish hypotheses from established facts or theories, and limit ourselves to hypotheses which have passed peer-reviewing and also evoced some interest by others than their direct inventors, we should have room for a substantial amount of scientific hypotheses. JoergenB (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to point out that the hype has now officially died. Tyche (hypothetical planet) is now getting less than a third the views of Planets beyond Neptune. Serendipodous 11:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it should merged with Nemesis—this is just a reincarnation of the same idea. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Kinda. Though Nemesis is a star and this is supposedly a planet. Personally I'd say this was more similar to Planet X, in that it's a planet used to explain a supposed gravitational anomaly in the outer Solar System. Serendipodous 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

wee need a pick

like wee can uss a pick from Celestia that can work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiza667 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Celestia is that it just generically draws a gas giant either close or far from a host star. That is not as good as a NASA reviewed artists rendering, and thus would not add depth to the article.. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

a good pick?

Tyche should be roughly the same volume as Jupiter and thus smaller than imaged.

U think it looks good enough? -- Freiza667 (talkcontribs)

We do need to avoid original research. At 1 MJ it would be basically the size of Jupiter. TrES-4b (also 1MJ) is larger than Jupiter because it is a hot jupiter. We do not know if Tyche even exists and even if it does, we do not know how far away it is. According to the hypothesize, The further out it is, the more likely it is to be more massive. Even at 4 MJ, this object may barely be larger in volume than Jupiter, though I have not looked up the rules for sub-brown dwarf diameters recently. Wikipedia shows HD 80606 b and HD 17156 b being 3-4 MJ and having diameters just less than Jupiter. Do you have a reliable reference that a 2-4 MJ gas giant should have your diameter? -- Kheider (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Theory of Giant Planets (2002) Hubbard, Burrows, Lunine[4] and Mass-Radius Relationships for Solid Exoplanets (2008) Seager, Kuchner, Hier-Majumder, Militzer (arXiv:0707.2895 / PDF) the volume of a cold gas giant of that size would be close to the same as Jupiter (or smaller than Jupiter). The planet with the largest diameter would have a mass of approximated 500 M (Jupiter being 300 M, it is close to the maximum size, as size does not change much in the range of Jupiter) To calculate it, use the formulae in the paper The Mass-Radius Relation for Cold Spheres of Low Mass (1969)[5]. (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources now it seams that wee have 18 red dwarf stars orbiting ar sun. -- Freiza667 (talkcontribs)

What? They are merely talking others stars that may pass close to Sun as they (including our Sun) orbit inside the Milky Way galaxy. John Bochanski is talking about Galactic structure. No reliable source seems to claim that they orbit the Sun. I suggest staying away from blogs that focus on Nemesis if you want good data. BAUT is a good place to get useful information. -- Kheider (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This just isn't true. There are major scientific papers suggesting Tyche may be there. You shouldn't review blogs, but instead you should review science articles before you go making such statements. NASA is also looking into the theory.

That doesn't mean that the theory is correct, but to say it's only a subject in the blogosphere shows poor research on your part.

This article (among many) covers the recent NASA press interview on the Tyche theory: (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whom you are replying to but there is a big difference between claiming Tyche may exist and claiming that 18 red dwarfs orbit the Sun. See: Solar System 'Nemesis': Nearby Stars Could Pose Threat Stars pass close to the Solar System on an (astronomically-speaking) regular basis. -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some quotes from the NASA statement, and also it's Press Conference, on the Issue of the WISE Telescope Mission and the Tyche Theory should be added to the article

NASA is looking into the Tyche planet theory and held a press conference about this recently. No definitive answers on issue are expected for up to two years as much sky survey data has to be analyzed first.

This article (among many recent articles from various credible news sources) covers the recent NASA press interview on the Tyche theory: (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have a link to that article; it's in the heading. Serendipodous 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But thank you anyway for your contribution. Larryisgood (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As Larry and Serendipodous have mentioned the primary NASA source for that article is (February 18, 2011), and was added to the article on Feb 19. Why should we use a secondary source written Feb 21? -- Kheider (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Go easy K, he was just trying to help. Serendipodous 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a widely-accepted hypothesis.

As far as I can tell this is a hypothesis proposed mainly by Matese and Whitmire which is not widely accepted by the astronomical community. At the very least this article needs further discussion on criticisms of the Tyche hypothesis. Icalanise (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is not widely accepted. I call it "a Jovian-mass best-fit to a perceived statistical fluke in the orbit of comets with a semi-major axis > 10,000AU.". I was more concerned with the planets potential physical characteristics than the politics, but we certainly can not forgot about the 2012 crowd that may take an interest in a sister article to Nemesis. Feel free to add material, but I am still not sure we need a POV-disclaimer above the article. I know of no astronomer that claims Tyche can not exist. -- Kheider (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
To make the hypothetical-ness of Tyche's existence more evident, I think the article should be moved to Tyche (hypothesized planet) (or something similar) - the current disambiguating extension "(planet)" is shorter but not really correct: strictly speaking Tyche is not a planet (yet), only a hypothesized one.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since Vulcan (planet) directs to Vulcan (hypothetical planet). I agree. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Nemesis (star) is the main article on Nemesis, and it's hypothetical. Heck, Wormwood (star) is that star's main article, and that's only mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Serendipodous 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think (hypothetical planet) goes a long way towards summarizing the article quickly. -- Kheider (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Moreover, I would find it reasonable to move the Nemesis article to Nemesis (hypothetical star). As to Wormwood, the benefits of a similar move might not oughtweight the chances of getting into a long theological discussion about "revelation" as a basis of knowledge; but in principle I would prefer "hypothetical" there, too. JoergenB (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So can we remove the neutrality tag now? Serendipodous 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag as the article title does address some of this issue. Could still do with more detail on the criticism of the hypothesis though, so will take a look... Icalanise (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tyche (planet)Tyche (hypothetical planet) — This planet is hypothesized and is NOT known to exist. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Larryisgood (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Move---Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Supporting, as I suggested similarly in the last thread. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd support this move, although right now I am not particularly convinced that the Tyche hypothesis should stand as a separate article beyond more general discussion of other "Planet X" hypotheses. Icalanise (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment but "Planet X" is the planet that accounts for deviations from the calculated orbit of Neptune... This is more like Shiva Hypothesis + Nemesis (star) background hypotheses, accounting for excess in long period comets. (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, as long as we're talking merges again, let me voice my support. This is really just another "Planet X" and, unless it is found, should stay with its brothers in Planets beyond Neptune. Serendipodous 10:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and would also support a move of other proposed and hypothetical celestial objects to include an adjective in the disambigifier. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Support this makes sense. Nemesis (star) should also be renamed to Nemesis (hypothetical star). (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as motivated in the preceeding thread. JoergenB (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:SNOW applies. Serendipodous 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
In what sense?Larryisgood (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As in, we should just do it, instead of waiting for more supports. No one is going to object at this point. Serendipodous 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, where do we go from here?

A "criticism" section? As far as I can tell, no one is saying there is any evidence against this idea, just that the evidence for is rather weak for such a bold claim. What should be said? Serendipodous 17:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still interested in this?

Or can I merge it back? Serendipodous 19:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that this article is linked to Nibiru collision, am I still inclined to keep the article. I kind of agree that if there is a merger, it should be with Nemesis (star). But I would like to hear other potential solutions. Even comet Elenin C/2010 X1 is being compared to Planet X since it will come a little closer to the Earth than Venus does, the first 3 letters are the same as "Extinction Level Event", and the alignment of the Sun-Earth-Elenin on "2010-Feb-26 opposition at 179°, 2010-Sep-05 @ 0.5°, and 2011-Mar-14 @ 178°. -- Kheider (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to add that info to Nibiru collision, if you like; just be sure to add a source linking it to the Planet X hysteria.Serendipodous 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought about adding the concerns to the comet article, but decided there are "no reliable source that alignments of the comet are causing Earthquakes". On average there is a quake greater than magnitude 7 just about every month. Given an error range of ±5°, on any given day there is a 5.5% chance of an "alignment". (10/180=0.055. 180° is a straight line and 10 = the range 0-5 and also 175-180. During the Japan quake the comet alignment was 175.8°) These statements are statistics, not science. Other than in the fringes of cyberspace, comet Elenin is just an average sized comet from the Oort Cloud region that will pass close enough to the Earth to probably appear about as bright as the Andromeda Galaxy. Due to the close approach to Earth, the comet may display a large tail and may put on an good meteor shower. -- Kheider (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't have to provide reliable sources saying that comets cause earthquakes; all we have to so is provide a reliable source saying that a substantial number of people believe that this comet will cause earthquakes. Hopefully then followed by an even more reliable source debunking the claim. Halley's Comet has a substantial paragraph on the panic caused by Earth passing through its tail, but that doesn't mean we believe the human race was wiped out in 1910. Serendipodous 11:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as we've got sufficient references to establish notability, I'd argue to keep this article as is. I'd rather not merge it with Nemesis (hypothetical star), either. Tyche and Nemesis are both conjectured objects which may explain similar phenomena, they can't both be right: one is described as a gas giant, another a red dwarf, one may exist in the Oort cloud, one outside it. I see it like our articles on evolution and transmutation: they are both reasonable ideas given a lack of evidence (and only one turned out to be correct, of course), but they describe different methods of transition and deserve different articles. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to delete. Tyche has made the news & there's serious science being done about it. Moreover, it's distinct from other hypotheses, such as Nemesis; the dab of them argues for separation IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I officially give up. I'm a stubborn SOB but even I know when I'm beaten. Serendipodous 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"I thought about adding the concerns to the comet article" Please don't. That's pure nonesense. Anybody who thinks there's a connection needs a reality check. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. but it did come up @ Talk:C/2010 X1 -- Kheider (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 :/ :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Does anyone have any suggestions on an appropriate archiving timeframe? User:Serendipodous started the first archive, approximately two weeks after the last discussion ended. User:Telemachus.forward would, I presume, like to allow more time before archiving. I personally don't have much of an opinion either way, although I'll suggest we use something like User:MiszaBot II to automate the process. But that's just my $0.02.

I'll add that if the consensus is to undo the archiving (fully or partially) and restore some of the Talk, we can always do that. Ideas? Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the arguments have been resolved. The result was that the article should be kept. There hasn't been a significant addition to the page since, so it should be archived. Serendipodous 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This page was not edited from 23 March 2011 to the archive date of 14 April 2011. As one of the primary editors of the page, I doubt there will be much scientific material added to this hypothetical object for a while. -- Kheider (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If this is a low traffic article having things archived automatically will be prevent people from have a conversation about adding material. The guidelines for archiving talk pages was 10 sections or 50k (WP:TALKCOND) which neither was met, so not sure why archiving was done in the first place. --MarsRover (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been archiving at 30k for years- no one has seen fit to correct me until now, or, for that matter, accuse me of subterfuge and obsessive-compulsion as User:Telemachus.forward did. I personally feel that a 50k talk page is too long to follow, but I suppose I can accept it if that is consensus. Serendipodous 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
For me, content was the deciding factor. There were a few "what should we do with this article?" and "this is a valid source! no, it's not!" sections, some of which great heated, and I think putting that behind us was the proper thing to do. Articles about Tyche have all but disappeared in reliable and unreliable sources and there weren't any substantial edits to the article recently, so I see it as a natural point to archive. We'll probably see another surge of nonsense once the WISE data is analyzed, or around the end of 2012, when sources start to claim that Tyche's been found and it's hurtling towards Earth. (Oh, I hope I'm wrong on that one, I really do.) Anyways, just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
My last comment here... but if the goal was to put a heated discussion behind everyone. Not following guidelines and saying this was "perfectly acceptable" even though half the participates think otherwise is not moving you in that direction. The good thing about guidelines is when you follow them people will generally accept the decision and you could have avoided this whole debate. --MarsRover (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines are just that, guidelines. They're not hard-and-fast rules, they're not even policy. Serendipodous said that s/he regularly archives at 30k, so s/he was BOLD and did so. At the time of archiving, there had been no discussion of it, so it absolutely was perfectly acceptable. (In fact, I've worked on pages where editors archive a few days after each section gets resolved and it's fine.) Telemachus.forward (who is now contributing by IP address) reverted with a quite uncivil edit summary which also broke the formatting on the page and then added a comment which came across to me a slap in the face to Serendipodous. If it had been a simple revert with a civil edit summary, I'm sure it would have ended there. I brought this to Telemachus.forward's attention but that went nowhere. I am assuming good faith on TF's part and I now think his/her actions can be explained by misunderstanding of English and the nuances of Wiki markup, not that s/he was trying to continue arguing with Serendipodous after s/he had conceded (or just grown tired of) the argument. I really do want to get past this (and perhaps we can immediately archive this section after it's resolved), but I want you to understand how we got here.
So here we are. I'm assuming you'd prefer to keep archiving at 50k or 10 topics no matter what? Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a 50k archiving policy for good reason. It's inconsiderate to do this to other people. I would learn to let go and leave other peoples discussions alone. None of you has a right to judge what will or will not be "nonsense" discussion versus substance, in advance of what is going to be discussed.

And what has been done here is to break Wikipedias rules concerning archiving. You don't have that right so please restore the archived discussion.

Please also stop your admitted pattern of doing this to other articles in violation of Wikipedia policy. (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any rules when it comes to archiving Talk pages, only suggestions. WP:TALKCOND and WP:ARCHIVE are guidelines (not even policies, mind you) which suggest archiving at 50k characters or 10 sections, but they say that other criteria can be followed according to the consensus on each article. (MiszaBot II allows archive by date, for example, and that method seems to be default in the areas where I'm most involved.) What we're doing here, in this section, is deciding what those criteria will be (among other things). And that's not to say that the criteria can't or won't change if anyone wants to revisit the archiving guidelines in the future.
Which brings me to my second point. Yes, we've already archived some of the Talk sections. Yes, we could move some of them from the archive back into the main Talk page, if that's what we decide. But even if we don't, the fact that they're archived doesn't mean the topic is done with and can't ever be brought up again. You can always start another topic that is similar to one that was archived. We're not censoring you or telling you what you can and can't say on the Talk page. (WP:TALK does that quite nicely.)
Personally, I feel the archived topics have run their course. They are WP:DEADHORSE material, leaving us in a bit of a lull until something new comes along, which is why archiving was perfectly acceptable. If you feel differently, please suggest archiving criteria of your own, comment on those already suggested, or give us some specifics about which topics you feel were unresolved so we can move forward on improving the article, which is the whole goal around here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"but they say that other criteria can be followed according to the consensus on each article." What consensus? She just archived the whole thing without asking anybody.

We are discussing it only now that the archiving was challenged. (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What specific concern do you have with ANY material stored in the archive or on the main article page? If you have no specific concern then there is no need to continue this thread. -- Kheider (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The irony is that if this argument goes on long enough, it will push the archive past 50k. Serendipodous 12:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are discussing it now. Serendipodous archived it, you're disputing it, now we discuss it. That's how WP:BOLD works. So please, as Kheider asked, explain your concerns so that we can move forward. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to trivialize anyone's concerns here, but can we all just take a step back and look at what we are debating here? It is my understanding that all that is required to see the old topics is an extra mouse click or two, and as evidenced by these posts, we can probably rely on this page being monitored so as to prevent naive contributions from people unfamiliar with the discussions already raised. So how about we all just drop it? Larryisgood (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with dropping everything that's come before. But I would like to work out some kind of consensus for archiving in the future, just so this doesn't happen again. :) Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty silly to archive so fast. Just leave it alone. (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks a lot like a few individuals flirting with vandalism and trying to stay just inside the rules. It's inconsiderate to archive so quickly. If you can't take Wikipedia seriously go elsewhere. (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask an Astrobiologist

I was going to delet this as spam ^^ but then saw that it is actually a NASA article mentioning the Tyche theory, as well as the Nemesis theory (and therefore maybe a valid reference for this article, I have not read all of the NASA article though, so I can't be sure yet). The person who posted this link should have taken a moment to explain what the link was for, rather than just posting the bare link with no explanation whatsoever. -- (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the link to the talk page since it is a good link for the woo-woos to see. I have now also hyperlinked David Morrison's name for people that do not follow astronomy. But I am also not sure it would add much to the Tyche article as a reference. Nemesis (a red dwarf star/brown dwarf) is not expected to exist because it should have been fairly obvious (bright) in previous J-Band infrared surveys, but it is plausible that there is a Jupiter mass object near the edge of the solar system. -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Theory for Disturbance of Sedna?

A new science article came out today which could certainly be a presentation of an alternate theory on the cause of Sedna's disturbed orbit. But it does not come right out and say it, so it could not (yet) be used as a source until there is an explicit theoretical connection drawn by scientific sources. But that may not be too far away. Here is the article (from a credible science source): -- (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's referring to this idea, I think. Sedna isn't mentioned in that article, so connecting it to this hypothesis would be OR. Serendipodous 10:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A hypothetical fifth ice giant being ejected from the early solar system has nothing to do with planet Tyche. Jupiter is not massive enough to eject a body more massive than itself. See: Young Solar System's Fifth Giant Planet? for David Nesvorny's arxiv paper. -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than opining, the mention of this new article just alerts editors that an alternative theory along these lines might show soon, although the recent article does not mention Sedna (and so the point is just that it might be helpful to watch science news outlets-- in case a new reference does emerge). I was not promoting any theory but just staying alert to an emerging potential source. (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tyche announced?

Full Results of the WISE survey were released on March 14th, 2012. So have they found Tyche yet?-- (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Tyche probably does not exist. -- Kheider (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Won't it take years though, to analyze all of the data? (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's premature to say that it doesn't exist when much of the data hasn't been analyzed. (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All of the data has been looked at for obvious bright objects that would shift as a result of the parallax of the Earth moving from one side of its orbit to the other. So *IF* Tyche exists, it is likely on the low mass range of the estimates. So it is valid to say, "Tyche probably does not exist." -- Kheider (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Or unless there are a couple of low-mass objects. Less likely as well, but possible. DiamondLattice (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not trivia, please don't delete

" Whitmire and Matese speculate that Tyche's orbit would lie at approximately 500 times Neptune's distance; equivalent to 15,000 AU (2.2×10^12 km) from the Sun, a little less than one quarter of a light year. This mean that if we use the fastest spaceship up-to-date New horizons probe, 44,537 miles per hour (71,675 km/h) [11] it would take many years(about > 3504 ) to travel."

In this article it is for 2 reasons. 1) This is a hypothetical near unknown planet, the best "source" for "discovery" and cutting of if it exists or no for even most people are photos. When somebody made a photo of Earth from space it was a bigger "prove", that for many people calculations by humans thousands years ago. So it show why it this so big and hard gap to made science work on Kuiper belt. 2) Any user "from internet" or "educational"/"newspaper editor" who have basic or no knowledge can use it to show distance comparison easily for most people on Earth(and many of them don't remember what is AU, or want to calculate this - the computers are to leave the brain calculation force for creative thinking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo answers in not a reliable source. The New Horizons trivia adds no value to the assumed orbit of this object. It can also mislead the casual reader into assuming that NH is traveling in the direction of Tyche even though if Tyche exists we do not know where it is. Is 3504 years, "many years"? This sentence is poorly worded and adds little value to the article. -- Kheider (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Gomes is not Tyche

The planet Gomes speculates about would not be Tyche because it would be too close to the Sun (1500AU) and would only be as massive as Neptune. -- Kheider (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


The note says: "A cold hydrogen-rich gas giant slightly more massive than Jupiter (below about 1.6 MJ) would be larger in volume than Jupiter, but for higher masses, degenerate pressure will cause the planet to shrink". Could anyone point to where the source says this? Figure 4 in the source does not quite seem to say this... --JorisvS (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference states 500 M which is 1.6 MJ since Jupiter is 318 times more massive than Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The graphic

Why is the sun at the centre of Tyche's supposed orbit rather than at one of the focii? -- (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no graphic describing Tyche's orbit. Serendipodous 07:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As is common, the reader is probably confusing the obsolete Nemesis (hypothetical star) (95000 AU from the Sun) with Tyche, a hypothetical planet much closer to the Sun (10000-15000AU). Many websites confuse these two very different theories. -- Kheider (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)