Talk:Nemesis (hypothetical star)

New development

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02652 http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2015/12/10/astronomers-find-new-object-possible-super-earth-in-our-solar-system/ http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/atacama-large-millimetersubmillimeter.html

Nothing to do with this; 300 AU is nowhere near where Nemesis is supposed to be. Serendi^podous 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The distance to the object is unknown and it is not massive enough to be a traditional "13 Jupiter mass" brown dwarf. Assuming their results are not "wrong" my money is still on a Pluto like (E)TNO since that is the easiest and thus most likely planet explanation. This could also just be the detection of a star forming galaxy. Nothing useful about Nemesis has been written since ~2003. The Nemesis hypothesis is pitifully dated. -- Kheider (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The theory has been revived anyway thanks to this evidence...21:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.125.231 (talk)

The majority of solar-type stars are single.

Hier they say that half to two thirds of near sun-type stars are binaries: http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/binstar.htm
.. studies of nearby solar-type stars show that about two thirds of them have stellar companions 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

It is always better to use peer-reviewed papers instead of an undated webpage. Slightly more than 50% of solar-type stars are single. But this also depends on how one defines solar-type star and/or stellar companion. Regardless, our Sun does not have a stellar-class companion. -- Kheider (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, our Sun does not have a stellar-class companion That is exactly what I don't see has been proven 194.174.73.80 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Marco Pagliero

Based on real surveys, there is no reason to think there is any undiscovered object more massive than roughly Saturn orbiting the Sun. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts. Regardless, any such object would stay quite far from the inner Solar System. -- Kheider (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

cultural references

Recently came across the 1962 Japanese film Gorath and it seems to hit most of the hallmarks of the Nemesis theory. Should it be mentioned on the page or is it too obscure or unrelated since it actually came out long before Nemesis was proposed? If anything to me that makes it more important since it could be where people made up the idea from anyway but that would be original research until I found proof the people that came up with Nemesis had seen Gorath. IRMacGuyver (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Gorath has nothing to do with Nemesis. You are confusing it with all the Nibiru BS. -- Kheider (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In Beyond the Wall of Sleep by H. P. Lovecraft, published in 1919, there is a being that appears as a star and refers to itself as "a Nemesis." I found this page by searching for references to this in actual stars. Could this choice of name have been a reference to Lovecraft? 75.90.141.37 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nemesis (hypothetical star). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023225846/http://astrobiology2.arc.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=21175 to http://astrobiology2.arc.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=21175
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121213101422/http://astrobiology2.arc.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=16790 to http://astrobiology2.arc.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=16790
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://astrobiology2.arc.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=13040
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3427/getting-wise-about-nemesis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nemesis (hypothetical star). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161001173911/https://www.bungie.net/en/Armory/Detail?type=item&item=3851373522&itemname=Nemesis%20Star to https://www.bungie.net/en/Armory/Detail?type=item&item=3851373522&itemname=Nemesis%20Star

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sedna "never affected by the Sun"

Michael Brown is quoted as saying Sedna "never comes close enough to be affected by the Sun". But it is orbiting the Sun! Does he mean "It never comes close enough to the Sun to be thrown off a regular orbit by any of the planets?" I am guessing. Could someone with knowledge and sources put some clarification please? 59.102.58.183 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It means that that its surface always remains very cold. Ruslik_Zero 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But he is talking in the context of "putting Sedna where it is" - affecting its orbit. Do you mean outgassing, like a comet? - No, if it stays cold that won't happen. I repeat my original question: what did his statement actually mean? 59.102.58.183 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section Shortening and Reshufflement.

Rearranged some sentences, moved some to later subsections, and removed a quote (that only tangentially touches on the topic) to conform to MOS:LEADLENGTH. Also removed the long lead template. Azertygod (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)