Talk:Jovian–Plutonian gravitational effect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jovian–Plutonian gravitational effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 1, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in 1976, people reported feeling a floating sensation as they jumped in the air, caused by a Jovian–Plutonian gravitational effect (Jupiter pictured)?

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Today is the 1st of April :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.163.160 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be accurately stated as a JOKE (hoax). On April 1st, 1976, Jupiter and Pluto where on opposite sides of the sun.[1] Pluto was 25.1 degrees from conjunction with the rajat Sun (as seen by an observer on Jupiter). From Jupiter, Pluto's closest point to conjunction with the Sun would have been 13.37 degrees on 1975-Jun-12 (remember Pluto's orbit is inclined 17 degrees). Pluto's gravity has no measurable effect on the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here to state that the article needs to note at the end that this was an April Fool's Day joke. Pluto's effect would be negligible. Royalbroil 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter is always closer to the Earth than Pluto and Jupiter is 146,000 times more massive than Pluto. -- Kheider (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my word! The only categories this article is in are [[Category:April Fools' Day]] and [[Category:Journalistic hoaxes]]. It's offered for the Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, and no one with any knowledge of astronomy could begin to take it seriously. Xn4 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I have seen some uninformed people jump on some weird things when it comes to astronomical events. Since Pluto was re-classified as a dwarf planet, I have seen some strange claims added and defended to Pluto's article. -- Kheider (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. As suggested by Royalbroil, I've added at the beginning of Aftermath: "The story was quickly revealed as an April Fools' Day hoax." That gives any readers with IQs in double figures the time to work it out for themselves! Xn4 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2013-Nov-13 Pluto will almost pass behind the Sun (a conjunction that misses the Sun by 2.51 degrees) as seen from Jupiter. But the Earth will not then be on the line drawn by Jupiter-Sun-Pluto. In mid-January 2014, both Venus and Earth will be on this line thus forming a planetary alignment with 5 objects on it (Jupiter-Earth-Venus-Sun-Pluto). -- Kheider (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax part should definitely be included in the lead. Not to spoil the fun, but it is incomplete and confusing if that is not mentioned at the beginning. I guess you could always wait till tomorrow to do so. Joshdboz (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should certainly be identified as a hoax in the lead. This has nothing to do with the plausibility of the story, it has to do with the integrity of Wikipedia. The policy on hoaxes explains how they should be presented, and the April Fool's Day policy says that the same standards should be followed as on any other day. Sorry to ruin the fun, but this is not how we do it. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging the last part as needing references is silly. Would you demand a reference for the statement "An apple when detached from the branch of a tree will fall to the ground due to the gravitational attraction of the earth"? These are statements of fact that can be validated by a reader without any references. Rtcutler (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does one cite mathematics? I suppose it is worth double checking those calculations (for example, checking the mass of a car and the gravitational influence at half a meter away), but other that that, the link to the article on Newton's Law of Gravitation is more or less all you need. Unless someone wants to run through the mathematics, check that it is accurate, publish it on a website, and link it as a source. Actually... I think I might do just that. Give me a few weeks and I'll build a website. - Brian

Scope of article needs to be addressed

Is this article about the Astronomical Hoax or Sir Patrick Moore? There seems to be an abundance of information about Moore that is irrelevant to the article. -159.247.2.7 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And state clearly its a hoax, its very hard to determine from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both comments are correct, and I have fixed both. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. The critical thing about any hoax is the person behind it. How did it come about, and (most of all) why was it believed? Without the background information, the thing is a complete mystery. Xn4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jovian–Plutonian gravitational effect. 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/20070103145836/http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html to http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html

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) 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Hoax explained' section

This sections appears to be WP:OR, and essentially provides a completely misleading interpretation. The only force that would be felt by any object on the Earth's surface due to Jupiter's gravity is a tidal force, which is considerably smaller than the gravitational pull. The gravitational pull would only have been of relevance if it affected the object but not the Earth, which of course is untrue. Though a section explaining the real effects makes sense in this article, a scientifically invalid explanation is perhaps worse than none. —Quondum 00:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]