The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence

by Andy Lloyd

  Astronomers are generally skeptical about finding planets at this distance, because they believe that the orbits would be easily subject to perturbation, causing the binaries to break down. This discovery brings this long-held belief into question. It implies that the brown dwarfs did not form in a larger star system, as per the ejection scenario already discussed. Instead, they must have slowly formed in the vicinity of each other, which leads us to suspect that at least some brown dwarfs form independently from parent star systems.25

  Not only does this research raise questions about how star and their planetary systems develop, but it also opens the door to more urgent speculation about the nature of a binary brown dwarf Companion in our own solar system, should such an object be discovered in the future. The potential for life to have developed in such a system is increasing; at least, that is the verdict of science!

  A Brown Dwarf 'Sun'

  We have seen that brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects that are many times more massive than Jupiter. Yet they remain approximately the same size. As a result their mass is confined to an area roughly the size of Jupiter, and this makes them extremely dense. This, in turn, makes their atmospheric activity levels so much greater than mere gas giants as their surface gravity becomes proportionate to their density. This is what gives these planet-sized objects the ability to create significant flares of high-energy radiation, as well as emit light, particularly in their early years.

  This idea is generally accepted on a theoretical level, but there have until recently been few small brown dwarfs observed to test the theory. It was thought that the brown dwarfs would gradually increase in size as they moved towards a more typical dwarf star, like a red dwarf. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is natural to assume some kind of smooth linearity to this trend.

  However, scientists on the 'OGLE' program have analyzed one particular binary brown dwarf, which is closely orbiting a sun-like star towards the centre of the Milky Way, and which has a density that is way off the charts. They have discovered - to their surprise - that this binary companion shines like the sun, yet is only 16% larger than Jupiter.26 This is amazing, because the binary companion is 50 times as massive as Jupiter, which makes it very dense indeed.27 Previously, brown dwarfs of this magnitude were imagined to be much larger objects.

  This 'sub-stellar object' has broken the trend set out by theory because it is simultaneously in the mass range of the brown dwarfs, shines like the sun but is the size of a regular planet! This creates diversity among these objects in practice which has surprised experts on brown dwarfs. As far as the Dark Star studies are concerned, the finding enables us to be versatile when discussing the properties of the smallest of these objects. Even though our brown dwarf companion may be only the size of a gas giant like Jupiter, it may still be very massive, and so active. That's not to say that our binary solar companion shines as brightly as the sun, of course, because if it did we would clearly have detected it by now. But we are left with a spectrum of possibilities that defies previous attempts to discredit my general thesis regarding how a binary solar companion might actually behave.

  In the near future the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer mission will undoubtedly reveal more of the mysteries surrounding these strange objects called brown dwarfs. The launch date for this NASA mission is set for 2008. The space-based telescope will carry sky-survey instruments that are half a million times more sensitive than the previous IRAS mission in the 1980s.28 This mission will be the best chance for discovering the Dark Star, an incredible object which lies at some considerable distance within our own solar system.

  References

  1 R. Naeye 'Astronomy' Aug. 1999, p36-42

  2 C. Sagan “Pale Blue Dot” p392 Headline Book Publishing

  3 Correspondence from M. Marley, 28/1/00

  4 David Griffin “How can we detect brown dwarfs?” 1998

  5 ESO press release 7/97 http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1997/pr-07-97.html

  “A Faint and Lonely Brown Dwarf in the Solar Vicinity”.

  6 R. Britt “New Neighbor may be Closest Known Brown Dwarf” http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/brown_dwarf_001122.html

  Space.com 27/11/2000

  7 Reuters, 11 July 2000, By Deborah Zabarenko, Washington

  8 K. Leutwyler “Bright X-rays, Dim Dwarfs” 17/7/2000 http://www.sciam.com/exhibit/2000/071700dwarf/

  9 "TWA 5B: X-Rays Found From a Lightweight Brown dwarf" http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/twa5b/

  With thanks to James Monds

  10 Unopened Files “Hubble Focuses on Rare 'Brown Dwarfs'” p82, Oct./Nov. 2000

  11 Astronomers Find Jupiter-Like Weather On Brown Dwarfs” http://www.spacedaily.com/news/extrasolar-02l.html

  http:// www.ucla.edu/Templates/NewsItem1.html

  23rd May 2002 Thanks to Brant

  12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_957000/ 957518.stm

  5/10/2000 “Mystery of free-floating 'planets'”

  13 G. Marcy & P. Butler 'Astronomy' March 2000 , p42-47

  14 J. Foust “Bizarre new planets puzzle astronomers” Spaceflight Now, 10th January 2000

  15 Associated Press “We Prefer Not to Call It a Failed Star. We Call It a Specially Challenged Brown Dwarf” http://www.aci.net/kalliste/

  9th January 2001

  16 Peter Bond “Brown dwarfs form in the same way as stars” Astronomy Now, p13, Mar 2004

  17 Young Stars in Chaos”, Press Release 12th April 2002, http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/mbate/Research/pr.html,based on M. Bate, I. Bonnell & V. Bromm “The Formation Of Stars And Brown Dwarfs And The Truncation Of Protoplanetary Discs In A Star Cluster”, With thanks to Rob Astor

  18 R. Stenger "In a first, object near a star caught on camera" 7 January 2002, with thanks to Allene Keller and Theo http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/07/brown.dwarf/index.html

  19 Kirkpatrick, J.D., 2003, "The Next Generation Sky Survey and the Quest for Cooler Brown Dwarfs", in Proc. of Brown Dwarfs, Ed. Martin, E. L., IAU Symposium, Vol. 211, p. 497-504

  20 Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Lunine, J. I., "Beyond the T Dwarfs: Theoretical Spectra, Colors, and Detectability of the Coolest Brown Dwarfs" to appear ApJ, in press, astroph/ 0304226

  21 R. Britt "Dark Planets May Orbit Strange Nearby Objects" 7th June 2001 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/aas_browndwarfs_010607.html

  22 An Artist's View of Brown Dwarf Types" Dr. Robert Hurt of the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center http://www.spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/davy/2mass/science/comparison.html

  23 A. Burrows et al "Beyond the T Dwarfs: Theoretical Spectra, Colors, and Detectability of the Coolest Brown Dwarfs" astroph/ 0304226 April 2003, with thanks to J.D. Kirkpatrick and John Lee

  24 Hazel Muir, "Brown Dwarf may Someday Harbour Habitable Planets" 8th February 2005, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6977 with thanks to Peter Gersten, et al

  25 Amitabh Avasthi "Brown Dwarfs win Star Status" 9th July 2004, with thanks to David Pearson http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996133

  26 The Guardian "Hot Star Shines in Tiny Role" p11, 5th March 2005

  27 Robert Roy Britt "Newfound star smaller than some planets" 3rd March 2005 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7081156/

  28 W. Clavin “NASA Approves Mission To Seek Nearest Stars, Brightest Galaxies” JPL News Release, 6th October 2004 http:// www.jpl.nasa.gov

  10. Anomalies in the Solar System

  There are a number of anomalies in the planetary science of the solar system that have not been satisfactorily explained by science. There are compelling reasons to suspect that there is a missing piece to the planetary jigsaw. I think that there is a companion brown dwarf awaiting discovery somewhere beyond the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.

  The evidence suggests that any catastrophic movement of this sub-brown dwarf through the planetary solar system would have taken place during the early period of our sun's life. Things have settled down a lot since then,
it seems. Still, there are anomalies that need to be addressed, which we will look at in some detail over the next few chapters. These are important considerations, because the anomalies themselves suggest that our understanding of the nature of our solar system is not quite as good as we generally think.

  When we take a look at our solar system, we have an ingrained understanding that what we are now seeing is how it has always been. The regularity of the planets denotes how they came to be, even though it is understood that the early solar system was in a state of chaos. One assumes that a 'normal' planetary system would be comprised of a series of planets in spaced-out, circular orbits.

  Bode's Law allows astronomers to predict the stable placement of planets within harmonic distances of the sun. But, the new picture emerging from giant extrasolar planets causes certain problems for this model. Their eccentricity and remarkable proximity to their stars belie the acid test of common sense that our system seems to provide.

  We tend to think that the solar system presents a fairly stable scenario whereby the planets sweep around in a common direction, enjoying roughly circular orbits, with each spinning uniformly with respect to each other. Well, that's not quite how it is.

  Pluto

  Pluto and Charon, the planetary binary that generally marks the limit of the planetary solar system, share an elliptical orbit that is inclined to the ecliptic by 17 degrees. Pluto is a small, rocky planet about two thirds the size of our Moon. It's moon, Charon, is very large in relation to the parent planet, in a similar way to our Moon in relation to the Earth. Astronomers consider it likely that Pluto was once a moon of Neptune that escaped long ago.1

  No mechanism is offered for how the moon may have escaped. Compare this to Sitchin's description given in the Enuma Elish, about Pluto having originally been a moon of Saturn, that was ripped away by the first passage of Marduk into the solar system. Pluto was then named 'Gaga' by the Babylonians.2

  In a sense, then, Sitchin's planetary interpretation of the Mesopotamian myth is consistent with the modern scientific idea that Pluto is a rogue satellite. They simply disagree about which planet was the 'parent'. It is possible that future space probes to Pluto and Charon might help to answer this question, particularly if we could analyses the rocky materials found on these worlds and compare them to similar satellites of the outer planets.

  Astronomers still argue as to whether Pluto should be classified as a planet at all, although those that advocate that it should, maintain the upper hand in the debate. Regardless, Pluto's elliptical orbit, inclined to the ecliptic, breaks the flat, circular mould. It raises questions at to why this world behaves in the way that it does, questions not readily answered by a stable, circular model for the entire solar system.

  Titan

  The effect of Nibiru/Marduk's primordial passage past Saturn, as described by Sitchin, can also be recognized in a little known anomaly regarding its largest moon, Titan. This moon has a dense, cold atmosphere of hydrocarbons, mostly consisting of methane. It is now known that Titan also has oceans of liquid methane, and that it probably rains methane too.

  Titan exhibits a non-circular orbit around Saturn, a property that implies a smooth surface. This is anomalous, because Saturn, the giant parent planet, should raise substantial tides on the surface of Titan. The resulting tidal friction should have made the moon's orbit around Saturn circular over a period less than the age of the solar system.

  Carl Sagan and Stanley Dermot argued in 1982 that Titan's elliptical orbit implied either an all-ocean planet, or else a planet with no substantial bodies of water at all. They showed that “the tidal friction in places where the ocean is shallow would have taken its toll” resulting in a different orbit from the one observed.3

  Sagan cites radar measurements of the surface of Titan that indicate its surface to have both oceans of hydrocarbons, and continental landmasses, exactly what should not happen. It is generally accepted now that Titan's surface is varied, and the Cassini spacecraft, with its Huygens probe has proved this. But, these contradictory findings created an uncomfortable difficulty for the late Dr. Sagan, who set about a bit of soul-searching. He provided some complex arguments which could reconcile the eccentric orbit with the Titan surface features, but does not seem convinced himself that this line of reasoning is likely. There is an anomaly here.

  Perhaps the Dark Star can provide the answer, both to the fact that Titan's lunar orbit is eccentric to begin with, and to why it has not become circular since the Celestial Battle 4 billion years ago. It may continue to influence worlds in the outer solar system with heterogeneous surface features, explaining this anomaly. Worlds with more homogenous surfaces, whether dry like Pluto, or oceanic like Europa, are not affected in the same way. The question is: how does the Dark Star tug Titan into a more eccentric orbit than the one implied by its surface features? Also, was the migration of Pluto to an orbit essentially beyond distant Neptune somehow part of this puzzle too?

  Cyclostratigraphy

  So, does this mean that Earth's orbit is similarly prone to variation by the maverick passages of an unknown body?

  Evidence from the study of Earth rock strata could indicate so. Earth exhibits a number of rotational and spin effects that cause minor variations in the way it lies in relation to the heavens.

  These effects can only be seen over long periods of time, and the best known of these is the Precession of the Equinoxes. This effect is due to a small wobble as Earth spins on its axis, which causes the heavens to move ever so slightly around each year. The heavens appear to rotate over exactly one year by one degree every 72 years.

  The ancients were aware of this precessional effect, which causes the rising of the sun on the spring equinox to gradually move backwards through a zodiacal house year-to-year. The ground-breaking book “Hamlet's Mill” by Santillana and Von Deschend, originally advocated the link between ancient myth, ancient architecture and the precession of the equinoxes.4 Their theory was later picked up by Robert Bauval as he applied the astronomical principle of precession to the layout of the Pyramids at Giza, and to the leonine Sphinx.

  The sun enters a new constellation every 2160 years, marking the change of the Age. Bauval's dating of the Pyramid field using precession, when comparing it to Orion's belt, produced the figure of 10,450 BC, in the Age of Leo. The leonine Sphinx faces due East, seeming to indicate the importance of the spring equinox, sacred to the Egyptians, and supports the dating symbolically to this Age.5 This has been supported by geological surveys of the Sphinx that have indicated weathering by rain. This data quixotically sets its age back far further than the 'Pyramid Age' of the Fourth Dynasty.6 As a result, such archeo-astronomical studies have become highly controversial.

  Precession, itself, provides astronomers with a bit of a dilemma. It cannot be readily accounted for by the interactions of the Earth with the sun, Moon and other planets. The scientific study of cyclostratigraphy provides evidence for a precessional fingerprint in rock layers.

  Roger Cunningham argues that Earth's precession, and other unusual minor obliquities in Earth's orbit, show an historical record in the rocks that contains a harmonic period. He also claims that the period of that harmonic, in other words the time difference between each effect being regenerated, is approximately 3600 years. This then coincides with the Sitchin's claim for the periodicity of Nibiru.7 It should also be mentioned that other researchers have claimed that the Precession of the Equinoxes is directly attributable to a hidden binary companion in the solar system, as we noted previously in Chapter 4.

  The Nineveh Constant

  Cunningham's research into cyclostratigraphy has certain parallels with similar work carried out by the NASA scientist, Maurice Chatelain, into the "Nineveh constant". The Nineveh constant takes the form of a sexigesimal-equivalent 15 digit number that was found on a clay tablet. This tablet was found within the Library of the learned Assyrian King Assurbanipal, who reigned in Nineveh from 669 to 626 BC. It translated to 195,955,200,00
0,000, a remarkable number to have been written at all in ancient times, irrespective of any meaningful significance we may attach to it.

  Chatelain's research showed that this figure represented an all-inclusive multiple of all the orbital periods and cycles of the planets in the solar system, including Earth's precession of the equinoxes, when the cycles were expressed in seconds. Each cycle period he tried to divide into this figure fit to within 4 decimal places, including sidereal cycles of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Chatelain claimed that this showed that the Sumerians, and later Assyrians, had astronomical and mathematical knowledge of these planets.8 This implied that the ancient Mesopotamians had somehow acquired 'impossible' data about the solar system.

  Chatelain claimed that the "Nineveh constant" represented a much sought after magical formula known as the "Great Constant of the solar system".8 If true, this would imply a kind of cosmic resonance throughout the solar system. Now, it is known that neighboring planets do tend to find agreeable orbits between them, which become harmonic. In ancient modes of thinking, we might consider this to be the 'Music of the Spheres' or some such. Is it possible that the ancients could have been aware of these kinds of detailed mathematical relationships?

  There is a physical relationship between the energies of the planetary orbits. They are mutually inter-dependent, and a change in circumstance for one planet leads to an alteration in the orbital parameters of the others (one wonders whether this relationship between the planetary 'binding energies' is the Sumerian 'bond Heaven-Earth', or DUR.AN.KI?). Perhaps this is what the Nineveh Constant alludes to. The importance attached to this inter-dependence is now lost. That may be because we do not really fully understand our own solar system.