This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest, for clarity's sake, improving "gravitational disturbances caused by the Earth crossing the plane of the Milky Way" by substituting "Solar System" in place of Earth. Seems to me that could cause confusion. KyurioZT 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about the terminology. Would you term this a theory. As far as I know you need to have a lot of e.g. experiments as proof before something is called a scientific "theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.195.81 ( talk) 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I found three ADSABS links regarding this weak Shiva Hypothesis – which is very few indeed – it is notable just by the skin of its teeth. If the interest on this hypothesis is not increasing very much in the future, I would estimate it will lose its notability. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This theory had been around for nearly 2 decades prior to Rampino & Haggerty naming it 'Shiva'. Rampino's omission of a citation to the original 1976 Napier and Clube paper may have been just an oversight but he was certainly aware of it. And, Rampino does appear to report this as his own original work in the popular press and on television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZweibelZwobble ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2016
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 05:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Shiva Hypothesis → Shiva hypothesis – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, particularly MOS:SCIMATH. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest, for clarity's sake, improving "gravitational disturbances caused by the Earth crossing the plane of the Milky Way" by substituting "Solar System" in place of Earth. Seems to me that could cause confusion. KyurioZT 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about the terminology. Would you term this a theory. As far as I know you need to have a lot of e.g. experiments as proof before something is called a scientific "theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.195.81 ( talk) 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I found three ADSABS links regarding this weak Shiva Hypothesis – which is very few indeed – it is notable just by the skin of its teeth. If the interest on this hypothesis is not increasing very much in the future, I would estimate it will lose its notability. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This theory had been around for nearly 2 decades prior to Rampino & Haggerty naming it 'Shiva'. Rampino's omission of a citation to the original 1976 Napier and Clube paper may have been just an oversight but he was certainly aware of it. And, Rampino does appear to report this as his own original work in the popular press and on television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZweibelZwobble ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2016
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 05:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Shiva Hypothesis → Shiva hypothesis – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, particularly MOS:SCIMATH. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)