Science bg additions?Edit
With all due respect, is it just me or does the recent addition "by a real scientist" make absolutely no sense? Ignoring the grammatical and typographical issues, I'm not sure what it adds to the article other than to say if you remove mass from a system the system changes. Yet the explosion of a planet would simply redistribute the mass in the same general orbit, not remove it fully from the system. So I'm not sure of the point. I propose it be reverted back as it was unless someone can turn it into text that makes a little more sense. (Of course, it is late, so perhaps I'm simply tired - but I don't think so.) Aholland 04:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Captain M.K.B. did a fine job of cleaning up the language. But now that it is clear, I'm not sure it is a very compelling explanation. I still prefer the potential explanation of a binary planet formation - closer proximity equaling greater effect. At typical planetary distances gravity effects are so minimal that your dog in the next room has a greater gravitational pull on you than, say, Mars. Any reason we can't toss that potential explanation in the hopper as well? Aholland 04:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that explanation could be used, and the one present could be further encapsulated. Regardless, i don't think these "scientists" are benefitting the article much -- the planet explded and messed with the other one. that is estabished. the fact that it is, in some opinions, unlikely, is pretty much irrelevant -- it happened. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I fully agree with you on this one! Aholland 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In response to: "Still, it is odd that the Reliant didn't notice the sudden change in planet count in the system, something that should have sparked an investigation and thus might have prevented Khan from being freed."
I thought that they confused V with VI, thinking that V exploded and VI was the one that was damaged. I seem to remember something like that in the movies... --MadDawg2552 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The entire Background sections needs a rework. It's entirely speculation without a single citation. While I'm not opposed to speculation in general (as long as it's made clear that's what it is), the entire part about "scientists have proven..." looks entirely ridiculous with any citation. It strikes me more that someone just came up with that on there own and added the "scientists have proven" bit just to add credence to their theories. 22.214.171.124 11:02, 22 April 2009
- I agree. Here's the background items I just removed:
- Some people have postulated that Ceti Alpha V and VI were binary planets, and that the sudden loss of one could possibly cause massive ecological effects on the other. It would also explain why the Reliant would have looked at that orbital distance for the planet. Others have suggested that all planets affect each other gravitationally, and the loss of one would necessarily affect the others. (Scientists have proven that the Earth-Moon gravitational combination prevents Venus from spiraling in towards our own Sun.) Still others have speculated that the "explosion" had a large subspace component which magnified the gravitational effects.
- Yet another possibility is that both Ceti Alpha V and Ceti Alpha VI had varying orbits similar to Neptune and Pluto in our own system, with the planets crossing in and out of each other's orbits. This would explain why Reliant could confuse Ceti Alpha V with Ceti Alpha VI. In this scenario, the unstable orbit between the two planets resulted in one planet's destruction. Still, it is odd that the Reliant didn't notice the sudden change in planet count in the system, something that should have sparked an investigation and thus might have prevented Khan from being freed.
- It's all speculation. -- sulfur 15:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ceti Alpha V Destroyed Edit
- The writers have joked on the audio commentary that if it wasn't bad enough the Xindi killed off almost all of Humanity, a hundred years from "Twilight", Ceti Alpha V would have been destroyed as well.
I don't have the commentary offhand but Ceti Alpha VI was destroyed and not V...can anyone confirm that they mentioned V instead? — Morder 09:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as Cid pointed out they may have meant destroyed as in uninhabitable...now I feel stupid... :( — Morder 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ceti Alpha V inhabitants Edit
This part of the article is speculative and is uncited. It has been uncited since it was added by an anon 3 years ago. The pictures in the section don't go with inhabitants. The section needs to be rewritten or deleted.Chalet (talk) 23:25, February 5, 2017 (UTC)