The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence
Page 7
If a small brown dwarf sometimes approaches the planetary zone to within 3 times the distance of Pluto, even though for the vast majority of the time it is located much further away, then it would significantly affect the minor planetary bodies of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. As we shall see, this is exactly what has been observed in the last few years. Where the brown dwarf has wandered, there is an absence of comets known as the "Kuiper Gap".
Finally, it is clear that a brown dwarf in a loosely bound orbit around the sun is subject to other external factors that can change its orbit. Indeed, to have even arrived in the outer Oort cloud in the first place, the Matese team were speculating that the brown dwarf had accreted, or formed from proto-planetary disc matter, closer to the sun ― and then migrated out as a result of stellar impulses over the history of the solar system.30 There is a dynamic process at play that complicates matters.
If the orbit of the Dark Star fluctuates over time then, the binding relationship between it and the sun within the binary system also changes over time. This potentially has dramatic consequences for the rest of the solar system. I will argue that dynamic process creates a unique mechanism for Catastrophism here on Earth, including the ebb and flow of the great Ice Age eras.
Critics in Both Directions
These considerations opened my eyes to the potential room for manoeuvre in the outer solar system. The orbits of the solar system brown dwarfs, as described by the scientists, were in the order of several million years. Yet, Zecharia Sitchin’s planet Nibiru was said to orbit the sun in a relatively short time period of 3600 years. These two situations were not readily convergent, even if many of the rest of the findings seemed to tie in superficially.
Dr. Matese and his team were aware of the comparisons which I had been making between their work and Zecharia Sitchin’s controversial ideas. Their main concern with such a link was that their brown dwarf occupied an orbit and periodicity that could not in any way be compared to Sitchin’s 3600 years. John Murray voiced similar objections. I think it is fair to say that their concerns did not arise from a dogmatic scientific stance, nor was it a knee-jerk reaction to an unwanted association with alternative science. Simply put, they thought the two theories could not be linked because the data would not support such a notion.
One should also put these objections in the context of the heat emanating from the scientific community in general, which was less than pleased about the resurrection of the Planet X debate. Both of these researchers had been getting some difficult feedback from their peers about their ideas, which were not generally well received in scientific circles (the media, in contrast, loved it). The influential solar system dynamist, Brian Marsden was invited to comment upon the possibilities by The Telegraph, and was cool about the idea:
"It's possibly suggestive," comments Brian Marsden, associate director for planetary sciences at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "I don't want to bet on it. We're certainly not going to name it".31
But other, more difficult questions have been publicly raised about John Murray’s research, such as by Harold Levison of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. When he was interviewed by ‘Discover’ magazine in 2001, he argued that "tinkering" with the comet data would make the anomalous effect simply disappear.32
It must be remembered that John Murray is not an astronomer. Although, his paper clearly met the approval of the Royal Astronomical Society, in order to be accepted for publication by this prestigious body. But he is somewhat "out-ranked" by an acknowledged expert on the Oort Cloud. However, such objections from the scientific community have been met head-on by Professor Matese, who cites other scientific researchers analyzing long-period comet data who have had a more positive outlook.33 The possibility of a Jupiter-mass companion seems alive and well.
In fact, the Matese team continues to analyze long-period comets and continues to find the non-random clustering, suggestive of the brown dwarf’s presence. And they continue to stand by their work. However, they see no reason whatsoever, that their proposed object might lie closer to the planetary zone in the guise of Sitchin’s mythical Nibiru.34
With respect to them, I’m not so sure. Their discussion of the "oscultation" effect, whereby their brown dwarf spends some of its time in an orbital configuration that approaches the outer solar system, is very interesting. The fact that the great circular orbit at 25,000+AU is "unstable" over long periods of time, suggests a migratory pattern for the brown dwarf. Then, as we shall see, there’s the large gap between the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt and the inner Oort Cloud, where no comets are seen to emanate from. I can’t help but think this is because this "gap" marks the territory of a massive perturber that has swept the region clean of cosmic debris.
This leads me to argue that the brown dwarf currently resides closer to the sun than the Matese team suggests. It is in the small print of the Matese paper from 1999, that a mechanism for a closer passage near the solar system becomes a distinct possibility.
Chapter 3 References
1 J. Davis “Beyond Pluto” pp9-10 Cambridge University Press 2001
2 (Ed) J. Shirley and R. Fairbridge "Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences": ‘Planet X’ by John D. Anderson, Chapman and Hall, see http://dosxx.colorado.edu/Pluto/PlanetX.Anderson.html
3 C. Sagan & A. Druyan “Comet” pp300-6, Headline 1985
4 “Does the Sun have a Dark Companion?” Newsweek, 28/6/ 82, p83, with thanks to Greg Jenner
5 W. Alvarez “T. Rex and the Crater of Doom” Penguin 1998 6. R. Corfield “Architects of Eternity” Ch 6, Headline 2001 7. D. Whitmire & A. Jackson, Nature (1984) 308, 713 8. M. Davis, P. Hut & R. Muller, Nature (1984) 308, 715
5 W. Alvarez “T. Rex and the Crater of Doom” Penguin 1998
6 R. Corfield “Architects of Eternity” Ch 6, Headline 2001
7 D. Whitmire & A. Jackson, Nature (1984) 308, 713
8 M. Davis, P. Hut & R. Muller, Nature (1984) 308, 715
9 D. Raup & J. Sepkoski, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (1984) 81, 801
10 P. Moore “Atlas of the Universe” p195, George Philip Ltd, 1999
11 Z. Sitchin “Genesis Revisited” pp319-24 Avon 1990
12 P. Moore “Guide to Stars and Planets” p100, Chancellor Press 2001
13 Hogg, D. W.; Quinlan, G. D. & Tremaine, S., 1991, "Dynamical limits on dark mass in the outer solar system", AJ, 101, p2274-2286
14 Private correspondence from J. D. Kirkpatrick, shared with me by John Lee, aka Rajasun and various other aliases 9/6/03
15 J. Kelly Beatty “Bigorbit Object Confounds Dynamicists” http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml#bigorbit
5th April 2001
16 Correspondence from Jim Oberg, 13th January 2002, www.jamesoberg.com email: joberg@houston.rr.com
17 J.Murray “Arguments for the presence of a distant large undiscovered solar system planet” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 309, 31-34 (1999)
18 J. Oort “The structure of the cloud of comets surrounding the solar system, and a hypothesis concerning its structure” Bull. Astron. Inst. Neth. 11, 91-110 (1950)
19 Enuma Elish Tablet I, Lines 87-105
20 Enuma Elish Tablet VI Lines 124-9
21 “Waiting for the Apocalypse” Documentary Video, 2003
22 E. Krupp, (ed.) “In Search of Ancient Astronomies” Doubleday & Co. 1978
23 E. Krupp “Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations” Oxford University Press 1983
24 G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend “Hamlet’s Mill” Gambit Inc. 1969
25 A. Lloyd “Winged Disc: The Dark Star Theory” which was available in manuscript form, 2001-4
26 A. Alford “Gods of the New Millennium” Hodder & Stoughton 1997
27 A. Lloyd “Ancient to Modern” p76, UFO Magazine Sept.- Oct. 1999
28 A. Lloyd ‘Synopsis of the Dark Star Theory’ pp50-5, UFO Magazine August 2001
29 J.J. Matese, P.G. Whitman and D.P. Whitmire, “Cometary Evidence of
a Massive Body in the Outer Oort Cloud” Icarus, 141, 354-336 (1999),
30 J.G. Hills “The Passage of a “Nemesis”-like object through the Planetary System” The Astronomical Journal, 90, Number 9, pp1876-1882, September 1985
31 P. Blakemore writing in The Telegraph, 22nd October 2002 http://www.viewzone.com/nemesis.html
32 Kathy A. Svitil "Dogged scientist looks for 'Planet X'" from Discover Magazine 5/12/01
33 Dr. Matese’s website: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638, citing ("Biases in Cometary Catalogues and Planet X", J. Horner and N. W. Evans, MNRAS (2002)
34 L. Moulton Howe interviewing Dr. John Matese, 2001, http://www.earthfiles.com/earth317.htm
8. Binary Companion
In the last chapter, we looked at some of the history of the hunt for Planet X. This search has been going on for about 100 years, sometimes in vogue, sometimes not. The suffix ‘X’ denotes either a potential Tenth Planet (in Roman numerals) or simply an Unknown. But, the term “planet” itself covers a wide spectrum of objects in space.
At the small end, we have small rocky worlds that are really just very large asteroids. The point at which an asteroid begins to be labeled a planet is not a clear-cut one, but generally it is the point where a world becomes spherical in shape, rather than being irregularly shaped. Thus, Pluto is generally accepted to be a planet.
However, the reader will no doubt point out that the Moon is spherical, as are many other moons in the solar system. Are these also planets in their own right? So, the additional factor appears to be whether the body is independently orbiting the sun, as we would normally understand a planet to do. A moon that is spherical may have the appearance of a planet, but because it orbits a parent planet, we generally think of it as a moon.
Examples include our own Moon, the Galilean moons of Jupiter and Titan. The latter is even more like a planet, though, because it has a thick atmosphere and a dynamic weather system, with liquid oceans and landmasses. We are left with the uncomfortable realization that Titan is more like our idea of a planet than, say, Pluto, which is small, barren and orbits the sun in a rather odd way.
It is clear, then, that the label ‘planet’ is not easily definable even at the lower end of the celestial market. Yet, these difficulties pale into insignificance when faced with defining a planet at the top end. Where once we thought we could easily distinguish between stars and planets, now the black and white labels are becoming increasingly confused.
Our common sense dictates that a planet does not emit its own light, and a star does. However, there is an array of bodies which lie in a grey area between these definitions. There are planets that behave a bit like stars; and some that behave like stars for a short time then die down a bit; and others that are almost stars, but not quite.
In the Chapter, Brown Dwarfs, we shall look at some of the science behind the understanding of these objects, many of which are called brown dwarfs. "brown dwarf" is not a great name for this kind of hybrid planet/star really, but it has stuck because no one’s come up with anything better. They’re the cosmic equivalent of a difficult teenager; not terribly easy to understand and full of surprises.
There’s a lot to think about with these brown dwarfs, but I would first like to first spend a little more time looking at the hunt for Planet X. That hunt has, on occasion, concentrated on the possibility that the tenth planet is a brown dwarf, or perhaps something larger. The speculation has been that we live in a binary star system.
Now, that is not to say that there is a full-blown star near the sun that has somehow evaded everyone’s attention for the last 6000 years or so. No, the thinking is that there might be an undetected planet which is so massive that it is warm, and possibly gives out its own light. If it emits a lot of light, then it would have to be very, very far away. If it’s essentially dark, then it could be closer and still have evaded detection.
So as a rough guide, we could imagine the following as reasonable possibilities: a terrestrial tenth planet like Mars or Earth might yet be found about 100 times as far away from the sun as the Earth (150 Astronomical Units). A planet heavier than Jupiter, but essentially still ‘dark’ might yet be discovered further still, perhaps 1000 astronomical units away. This lies somewhere between the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt and the inner Oort cloud. Lastly, a substantial brown dwarf, which is large enough to emit its own light, might lie undiscovered in the outer Oort cloud, more than 10,000 times the distance from the Earth to the sun.
Any of these possibilities are plausible I would argue, although many astronomers would rather dismiss them all. This is because the theory of planet-building, that is currently accepted, but does not readily allow for the ‘construction’ of planets so far away from the sun. However, things are not that straightforward anymore, as we shall soon discover, so I suggest we should remain open-minded for the time being.
Large bodies that emit heat, glow in the infrared part of the spectrum. That includes relatively cold objects as well, because the background temperature of space is itself so low. In 1983, there was an extensive sky survey carried out by a mission called IRAS, and thousands and thousands of ‘warm’ objects in the heavens were catalogued as a result. One of the hopes of the sky search was that it would turn up a tenth planet. Two decades later, controversy still rages about certain alleged discoveries made by IRAS, which were widely publicized at the time, stoking public interest in the possibility of a new planet.
The IRAS ‘Discovery’
A very famous Planet X ‘sighting’ was made by IRAS in 1983, and it has become the centre of several conspiracy theories that NASA has attempted to hush-up the discovery of Planet X. The report does appear to be very encouraging for a Dark Star, in that it described the object as being about the right size (like Jupiter, which is similar in size as a heavier brown dwarf), and at the right sort of distance (about 500AU). It might even be moving in the correct direction (towards us), although this was denied fervently by Gerry Neugebauer, the chief IRAS scientist at Cal Tech at the time.1
Arguably, its location is not without merit either. The controversial ‘object’ was spotted in Orion, which is a favorite potential location for Nibiru among many alternative researchers. Orion is one of the best known constellations in the sky, despite the fact that it lies south of the ecliptic and is not a zodiacal constellation. But its appearance in the Autumnal months in the Northern hemisphere is dramatic, and it appears clearly as a Hunter wielding his club in his right hand, whilst symbolically holding a lion skin in his left.
Over 100 years ago, Emmeline Plunket considered the idea that the constellation of Orion was known to the ancient people of the Indian subcontinent in a similar form to the later Greeks, who are credited with the name Orion. An etymological argument has been made that the Greek name was originally derived from the Sanskrit names of the Nakshatra, one of which means ‘first-going’.
From this, Plunket argues that the characterization of this constellation may have been as early as 4600BC, a quite extraordinary contention.2 Whether this very ancient dating is correct or not, it is evident that Orion was held in high esteem by the ancients. For instance, the Babylonians named the constellation after Tammuz, coincident with their month of the same name, which saw the heliacal rising of its famous belt of three stars.
Adrian Gilbert thinks that Orion was pivotal to our understanding of ancient religions3, and his colleague Robert Bauval became famous for his influential theory about the juxtaposition of the earthly Pyramids of Giza, with the heavenly belt stars of Orion.4 Even the esteemed archeo-astronomer E.C. Krupp recognizes the significance of the star Sirius and the constellation of Orion to the ancient Egyptians when he describes the account in the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts about the ascent of the departed king to Orion (Osiris), with Sirius as his guide.5
So is it little wonder that the pinpointing of an allegedly new solar system object in Orion by IRAS would ignite tremendous interest? However, I suspect that the Dark Star is to be found currentl
y in the exact opposite part of the sky, in the sky north of Sagittarius. I have some very good reasons for holding this view, which I will explain in due course.
Over the past several years, many have asked me why I seem to have ignored the IRAS finding, given the sensational way it was reported at the time. The answer is that the controversial result was never confirmed by optical means. There have been many contemporary astronomers interested in Planet X, including Brunini, Matese, Whitmire, Anderson and Harrington, to name but a few. If JPL, through the Washington Post, gave these fellows a treasure map back in 1983, one imagines that the buried planet would have been dug up long ago. Instead, it has become the stuff of Internet legend.
At the time, there were various suggestions for the identity of this ‘object’. It may have been a Jupiter-sized planet, whose distance from the sun was anything from Pluto's distance, to all the way out to the nearest star. This covers a very significant range of possibilities, indeed. But, other ideas included the possibility that the ‘object’ was a "dark, young galaxy" that had not been detected before, or even a proto-planetary gas cloud.1
In contrast to the fuss made about this finding, a second report emerged around the same time about a massive planet discovered by IRAS. The rumors of this next find created waves in the scientific community.
An IRAS Object Quietly Forgotten
In 1986, a rather diligent researcher named William Corliss published his book “The Sun and Solar system Debris - A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies”. Several observed anomalies are cited which may allude to Planet X, or even a dark companion to the sun. These anomalies remain unconfirmed, of course, but make for interesting reading nonetheless. One of them describes an object captured by the IRAS survey which sounds very much like the ‘Orion’ sighting, only this time it is located in the zodiacal constellation of Sagittarius, in the opposite half of the sky.6