>Hi again, Hilmar, and thanks for the reply.
>
>>I read in some older book about the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
>>While there were some theories about a destroyed planet, it seems that most
>>astronomers (at that time) thought it likely that a planet didn't form in the
>>first place, because gravitational interference of massive Jupiter.
>>
>>Judging by some articles I am just reading on the Wikipedia, it seems the
>>"Phaeton (or Phaethon) hypothesis" (the hypothesis of a destroyed planet)
>>is not generally accepted nowadays. From "Asteroid belt": "...A key problem
>>with such an hypothesis is the staggering amount of energy required to achieve
>>this kind of effect."
>
>Hmmm. Personally, I don't think I agree with this particular Wiki. Maybe
>I should go and edit it or something :^).

Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles (I edited and created a few), but contributors are expected to maintain a neutral point of view. A minority point of view can be explained, but if it is, it should be made clear that it is the minority point of view.

If you think the alternative hypothesis is not being done justice, go ahead and add your arguments.

I would suggest you do some research first; mainly: where would the enormous energy come from, required to destray a planet?

If you find some theory that seems viable, just add it. But note that the Wikipedia is "not a primary source" - all information should be verifiable. This should not be difficult in this case, i.e., whether the alternative theory is correct or not, you will surely find Web pages (outside the Wikipedia) that expound it.

>Ok. I'll go over and take a look, but I still say that I'm right,
>and I'm still willing to be all comers that I'll be proven correct
>in the not-too-distant future -- say, two years.
>Wager: The cost of a VFP upgrade :^) :^) :^).

Personally, I never wager.