Talk:Themis (hypothetical moon)

Comment
Should Themis really be included in the moon navigator? Other moons that were not confirmed aren't included. --Patteroast 07:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This one is rather unique from a historical perspective, as it was "discovered" twice, rather early in history, and stayed around for a long time in reference books until it was dismissed. Recent cases are much more evanescent in nature. I think it should stay.


 * Urhixidur 13:22, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Latimer's Story
Philip Latimer, in his novel Missing Men of Saturn, has Themis collide with Titan, "getting rid of the little nuisance once and for all", according to the introduction. CFLeon 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Themis disproven
When and how exactly was Themis proven to not be a moon of Saturn? That info should rate a couple of sentences in the article, more than just 'However, Pickering was mistaken...'. There isn't any info on it on the Saturn's natural satellites page either.

Bird of paradox 13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pickering may have mistaken Hyperion for something new. David M. Harland discusses the case in his book Mission to Saturn: Cassini and the Huygens Probe. He notes that the object Pickering observed could well have been an asteroid. The state of play appears to be: Pickering saw something on those plates; if it was something new, it was probably an asteroid or else a misidentified object that we are already familiar with; in any event failure of anyone, anywhere to see this moon again is taken as evidence that Themis does not really exist. It was never disproven because it was never proven in the first place. This ma seem puzzling to a layman but it is actually quite simple: scientists also have careers to think about, so when he or she thinks he or she has something new, they publish, usually in the genuine conviction that the finding is "real" and anticipating confirmation by many others. Sometimes mistakes are made and the novel phenomenon is never heard of again. Should, you ask, scientists be more careful in making absolutely sure before they publish? Well, yes, many scientists are like that, but you have never heard of their names.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1CAF:55D1:AFCD:2445 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * They now know that Saturn has 146 moons. Is it at all possible that one of them is Themis re-discovered?  Did Pickering provide any data that might suggest its orbital location, and we could now extrapolate to see if one of those 136 other moons they now know of is close enough to match? GBC (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick look at Moons of Saturn should make it clear that there's no moon orbiting between Titan and Hyperion, where Themis was said to be. The recently discovered moons are all distant irregular moons. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical
The word is being misused here. Themis' "existence" was not based on a hypothesis, but on a, presumably incorrect, observation. 90.219.103.203 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. In modern English usage (and yes, this is the English-language page) the word hypothesis is nigh-on synonymous with theory. So in that sense you are right. However, in its original sense (which is still current in French, for example) the meanings is somewhat wider, including possibilities one is willing to entertain. We are still not quite sure just what he saw on those plates! (Or are we?) Something of this wider sense survives in English. For instance, when you ask for advice on an embarrassing issue, you may pretend it is "for a friend" - your interlocutor will not be fooled and typically refer to "this hypothetical friend" of yours, and not your "theoretical friend" (although that would not be impossible).

I have a question about this and I ask it because the answer would deserve to appear on the main page: if these original photographic plates have survived, the nature of the "incorrectness" might have been determined. Is this known? Did he incorrectly interpret the physical traces, and have these now been found to be attributable to something else - and is the something else known? Or, more mysteriously, is the photographic evidence entirely in line with the existence of this hypothetical moon? For in that case, we have a mystery of evidence that never turned up again, and we might entertain the thought that it was a falsification (but the context of the story would very strongly suggest that the guy was sincere in his discoveries true and false). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1CAF:55D1:AFCD:2445 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)