Talk:E. Myles Standish

About possible Planet X
Talk:E Myles Standish

I have been doing ALOT of research on the theory of this "Planet X", "Nibiru". It "would" make sense if such an object as this is in fact real. What I mean is, there are so very many "civilizations" that have come and gone and yet no one seems to be able to explain why. Planet X would explain so much of our past history.

I have not made a decision on it to be factual or not... yet. However, I find that there is also ALOT of information that seems to have been deleted about it! Only the "myths" seem to stay on the web. This gives me reason to wonder if in fact there actually IS a "dwarf" planet on course to come thru our solar system...

Your opinion would be welcomed,

chill747


 * Response from Terry0051 -- Here is some information in response to unregistered poster 'chill747' on this talk page, asking for views about "Planet X".  Dr Standish published two papers (1993 and 1998) dealing with possible or suggested 'planet X'.  As far as I can see, he made what is clearly thoughtful and careful analysis, before coming to the conclusion that current observational and dynamical evidence did not lend support to any of the large and significant planets X that had been suggested.  (This did not pretend to exclude the existence of smaller objects in possibly large numbers such as those in the Kuiper belt.)


 * The papers are:


 * Standish, E. M. (1993) "Planet X - No dynamical evidence in the optical observations", in Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 105, no. 5, at pp. 2000-2006.


 * Standish, E. M. (1998) "Pluto and Planets X", in "Completing the Inventory of the Solar System", Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings, volume 107, T.W. Rettig and J.M. Hahn, Eds., pp. 163-170.


 * (Please note that I'm not personally acquainted with Dr Standish, nor in communication with him, and can't pretend to represent or answer for any opinions that he may still have on the subject.) --- Terry0051 (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth
This should be given, to distinguish between him and others with similar names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to have been born in about 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He retired in about 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His date of birth is now said to be 5/3/1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

h-index
It has often been pointed out that the h-index is far from scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It merely counts the number of citations, not importance. It is noted that self-citations are excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)