OK, I swore I wouldn't do this here, but I need help

[parallaxicality]

I didn't want to bring this up, because I was afraid I would lose whatever friends I have made here over the last few years if I did. I currently am the main editor of Wikipedia's article on Nancy's planet, a phenomenon which has, in recent years, become quite the cultural monster. Long after everyone's forgotten who Nancy Lieder was, and long after poor Sitchin has dragged his frail frame through another 2-hour talk to distance himself from her claims, and, I think, long after 2010, 2012 or whichever end date du jour happens to pass, Planet X, aka Nibiru aka Wormwood aka Nemesis aka Eris aka whatever will still be on its eternal path to almost hit Earth. It has gone beyond all rationality now. The number of webpages that mention Nibiru or Planet X and 2012 is now pushing half a million.

I didn't want to get involved. Quite frankly I'd had enough after 2003, when this was all supposed to be over anyway. I'd let Nancy's wikipage rot and took it off my watchlist. But then weird things started to happen. Pages I was working on started to get anonymous additions about the approach of Nibiru (which seems to have overtaken "Planet X" as the preferred name for this object). Old redirects I hadn't tested in years suddenly were filled with reams of unsourced information on the coming apocalypse. So, unwisely, I decided to do something about it. I changed the article's title from "ZetaTalk" to "Nibiru collision" (a change that resulted in a short edit war between myself and Nancy) and created a forest of new redirects. even having one unfortunate soul translate an article from German. All this was simply to delineate the proper distinctions between the Nibiru of Babylonian myth, the Nibiru of Sitchin (who, whatever you may think of him, doesn't deserve to spend his final years being blamed for an end of the world he never predicted) and the Nibiru of Nancy. As a result, within two months the page's hit count rose tenfold from ~300 to ~3000 a day. I was beginning to think I'd hit a seam.

Anyway, why am I telling you this? Good question. I'm not sure I know, perhaps just because I haven't had the opportunity to tell this to anyone and I need to vent. It's been a stressful few months. But I do really need your help. There is a tension you see, between Wikipedia pedantry, which defines a topic as "notable" depending on the number of "reliable" sources it contains, and what is actually of note in that strange shadowplay we call cyberspace, where the ramblings of one fantasy prone middle-aged frump can balloon into a global apocalypse panic based on, well, nothing. "Reliable" sources don't want to touch this topic with a ten-foot pole; they'd far rather get things wrong then go into any detail. The only people I've encountered who have challenged Nancy's claims in any robust fashion have been dear old Phil and the much put upon NASA astrobiologist David Morrison, who is one of the few people on the web who has praised my work to date, albeit unwittingly, for which I am grateful.

What I need, because I cannot find them, are reliable sources (that is, sources from accredited organisations) that specifically debunk Nancy's claims in detail. In particular I need a reliable source that shows that nothing can cause the Earth to stop rotating and start again, but any other scientific refutations would be great. Keep in mind, though, that any such refutation has to specifically mention Nibiru, or technically I am committing what Wikipedists call an "unpublished synthesis", effectively writing an essay.

I know by placing these demands on you I'm coming across as a total **** and I'm sorry, but then, Wikiepdia is like that.

[mahesh]

I would rephrase the last para/sentence, regardless of how you feel... if I were you....

[Arnold Layne]

What I need, because I cannot find them, are reliable sources (that is, sources from accredited organisations) that specifically debunk Nancy's claims in detail. In particular I need a reliable source that shows that nothing can cause the Earth to stop rotating and start again, but any other scientific refutations would be great. Keep in mind, though, that any such refutation has to specifically mention Nibiru, or technically I am committing what Wikipedists call an "unpublished synthesis", effectively writing an essay.

What exactly would be needed for the source to qualify? If someone is a member of some scientific organization and writes up a brief essay about why this sort of thing is nonsense, is that good enough? Or would it specifically have to have that organization's seal of approval, by being published in their journal, appearing on their website, or something like that?

If the latter, that might be a bit tough. I have difficulty imagining any scientific organization is going to publish an article in their journal showing that a rogue planet is not going to destroy the earth in 2012, or whatever it is that is being debunked.

But I would echo mahesh's comment, they're rather prickly about that sort of thing here.

[parallaxicality]

I don't think I could ever find a scientific paper on this, but something along the lines of Phil's old Bad Astronomy page would be great.

[Ara Pacis]

What about madsci.org or JREF or Penn and Teller's tv show as sources?

[syousef]

Principia Mathematica by Issac Newton? Kepler's 3rd law? Inverse square law and apparent brightness? Wikipedia has pages on them all.

You're arguing with a nutter that probably doesn't know much science. If the editor's don't know much science either (or at least enough to realize the whole argument is total bunk), you can't fix the problem.

[grapes]

I don't think I could ever find a scientific paper on this, but something along the lines of Phil's old Bad Astronomy page would be great.

Is his page gone?

And, how "unwittingly"? I'm intrigued.

[Jeff Root]

As long as this thread has been revived... and if parallaxicality still needs
source material... I participated in numerous discussions with Nancy in the
Usenet sci.astro newsgroup. Some of my posts are preserved on Nancy's
Zetatalk website. I disagreed with at least one very major point that was
being made against Nancy: That the Earth's surface would be melted by
the energy released when Earth's rotation is stopped. My belief is that the
amount of heating would depend entirely on the actual mechanism of the
rotation stoppage. Since the mechanism is fanciful, there is no scientific
way to analyze the amount of heat released. A very efficient method of
stopping Earth's rotation can be imagined in which the amount of heat
released in the Earth would be insignificant. The claim that Earth's surface
would be completely melted depends on the unwarranted supposition that
all the energy of the stopped rotation would go into heating the Earth.
In particular, it ignores transfer of the energy into motions of Planet X.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[grapes]

As long as this thread has been revived...

I am chagrined, I did not notice the dates...it was a long day. Sorry guys.

[stu]

Would a blog qualify? If so, I suppose I'll toot my own horn and tell you to take a look at mine, specifically the reams of posts I made about Planet X, 2012, and why nothing's going to happen. You could start with this post to see if it's what you want. If you need, I could quickly edit some of them to put in the name "Nibiru."

[aastrotech]

Why do you feel the need to refute this? I looked at the wiki page and it seems as honest as any other. The preface ends with "The idea that a planet-sized object could possibly collide with Earth in the near future is not supported by any scientific evidence and has been roundly rejected as pseudoscience by astronomers and planetary scientists."

I guess you could edit that entry with examples of the evidence both direct and indirect that would be required to scientificly validate such a claim.

It says in the article that the originator was told of the impending impact by grey aliens. People are going to believe in gray aliens or not. The're going to believe in fairies or the're not. I don't see much point in refuting such beliefs.

wiki has pages on the Kennedy assasination conspiracy and lunar hoax too. I suppose the only thing you can do is refute specific erroneous facts with supporting documentation.

[parallaxicality]

I wasn't expecting this thread to be resurrected, and I don't think there is any way I can find sources for the article that agree with Wikipedia's absurdly stringent rules. I've pretty much given up on any chances the article has of being taken seriously inside Wikipedia. Other people, particularly David Morrison, have praised it and so I can accept that instead.