The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence

by Andy Lloyd

  Eventually, I came to realize that the visible aspect of 'Nibiru', as described by Sitchin, might not actually be the Dark Star itself. Perhaps 'Planet X' was a planet orbiting the Dark Star that somehow got significantly closer to us as the distant Dark Star moved through the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. As John and I contemplated these ideas, new calculations were being made by members of the scientific community which provided more grist for the Planet X mill.

  The Gap in the EKB

  Matthew Holman's considered opinion about the possibility of an unknown perturber affecting EKBOs was strengthened in 2002, by work published by Adrian Brunini and Mario Melita.10 Dr. Brunini has been a long-standing Planet X hunter within the professional astronomical community, and works at the observatory at the La Plata National University in Argentina. He had teamed up with Dr. Melita, an astronomer and mathematician at Queen Mary College in London, to model the effect that an embedded planet-sized body might have on the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.

  Their mathematical modelling aimed at gauging the effect of a Mars-sized body orbiting at only 60AU from the sun, about twice the distance of Neptune. This seemed to me to be a remarkable leap of faith to be even contemplating such a body, given the usual vitriol about Planet X. Just a couple of months before, an astronomer from California was publicly discrediting any form of Planet X research, saying that it was strictly for the loony fringe and, I quote, "chicken-little" writers. While it may be true that the term 'Planet X' has become synonymous with speculative pseudo-science - particularly in the United States - the paper published by Brunini and Melita stands as a testament to the actual scientific potential of this exciting idea.

  Of course, the wording used in scientific papers covering this subject is carefully chosen to be adequately removed from the Planet X fever more commonly found on the Internet. Many astronomers prefer to use different terminology, mainly because the term 'Planet X' itself can mean a variety of things.11 Also, astronomers, like all academics and professionals, are well-versed in the use of jargon.

  They have at their disposal a wider selection of words to describe the various Planet X possibilities, and can elucidate their meaning in a more clear and technical way. In a way, they can protect themselves from association with the fringe by their use of this jargon. Even so, the name 'Planet X' has a lot of popular appeal, and the term is a generally accepted one among science writers in the media.12 Succinctly put, the potential for the discovery of Planet X sells science magazines and newspapers.

  Anyway, Brunini and Melita have tried to address the problem posed by the gaping hole, or empty band, in the EKB, which begins at 48 AU and is thought to extend to 76AU.13 Although, it's quite possible that it never resumes, and that a complete gaping hole extends right out to the inner Oort cloud. Even given the emerging distinction between various divisions of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, such a hole was a surprising discovery. It requires an urgent explanation.

  The answer proposed lies with an undiscovered planetary object that has been sweeping that part of the EKB clean over billions of years. Planet X appears to have been ploughing through the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, propelling cometary bodies out of the solar system. This sweeping action is considered to be roughly similar to the formation of gaps in the rings of Saturn, which have been carved out by the larger bodies orbiting the gas giant. Over the course of many millions of years, the statistical distribution of EKBOs in the massive belt beyond Neptune has been altered to such an extent, that perhaps only the presence of the perturbing body can explain how the observed data seems to vary with the theoretical expectation of population densities.

  Brunini and Melita tested their hypothesis by mathematically modelling the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, and this time including an additional planet in its midst. They assumed the object circles the sun at a similar sort of distance as the Kuiper Gap, and they tested for various angles of inclination, planetary mass and orbital eccentricity. They then produced a set of parameters which could best define the orbit of the alleged planet.

  They theorized that the planet would move neatly within the boundaries already proposed for the Kuiper Gap, and that it would be somewhat inclined to the ecliptic. This would then help to explain why it had not yet been discovered. These parameters seemed to produce sets of data that agreed relatively well with observations of the EKB:

  “The size of the gap cleared by such an object depends on the eccentricity of the planetoid... According to Trujillo and Brown (13), the cut-off in the EKB would begin at 48AU and the distribution could resume at 76AU. Thus, a consistent value for the perihelion of the planetoid would be 49AU and its aphelion 78AU: then the corresponding semi-major axis would be 62AU and the eccentricity ~0.21. As mentioned above a large inclination would ensure that it remains undetected at present. The effect of such an object...would be roughly consistent with current observation”.10

  Based on these findings, Brunini and Melita encouraged the search for Mars-sized bodies embedded in the EKB, citing the research efforts of Gladman, et al.13 and Collander-Brown, et al.14 on scattered disc objects as corroborating evidence, to support the now-familiar call for the hunt for Planet X.

  Planet X in the Media

  Their paper created a stir in Britain, hitting the newsstands through the Independent15 and the popular science magazine New Scientist.12 I also placed this new information in the alternative community's domain, which at the time was rather taken with the idea that Planet X was about to bring about the end of the world, as had been comprehensively recorded by Mark Hazelwood16, amongst others. For some reason, Planet X had become synonymous with an imminent End of the World.

  It is true that a planet-sized comet moving through the solar system would not be without its risks to Earth, but the idea has gotten rather tied up with Millennium Fever of late. More level-headed academics have pointed out that the Sumerians didn't even have a word for the equivalent of Apocalypse.17 Which is a moot point.

  Anyway, I naively thought that this exciting new scientific research would temper the debate with some rationalism. Instead, the finding appeared to be simply ignored by the Planet X 'community'. Without the accompanying threat of worldwide apocalypse, the scientific progress towards a real tenth planet, no matter how grounded in good science it might be, was not enough to stem the tide of Cataclysm fever.

  Perhaps that was because an object embedded within the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt seemed, on the face of it, to be no more of a threat to us than distant Pluto. How could such a body equate with a mighty mythical body that I had likened to a brown dwarf? If this body was a 'weapon of mass destruction', then the dossier outlining the threat it posed needed 'sexing up'! Well, jokes aside, I could see plenty of potential within the Brunini and Melita paper for a larger, more distant body causing the effect they were studying. I could also see related mechanisms to account for catastrophism on Earth, and other solar system planets. Just not in 2003.

  British Eccentricity?

  There are a number of reasons to believe that their findings are simply the cautious side of a larger spectrum of possibilities for a Planet X roaming the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt. As noted above, the greater body of scattered EKBOs lie beyond the assumed 'outer' cliff-face of the gap, and are beyond our current detection ability. The assumed outer limit of the gap is not fixed in stone. It may extend further out, which would allow for a more eccentric orbit for the Perturber, and this will be looked at in more detail in the next chapter. In other words, a relatively circular orbit for Planet X cannot be confirmed at this time, and was simply a premise built into Brunini and Melita's calculations.

  Their work assumes that the Kuiper Gap is an empty band within a larger extended disc; it assumes that the disc restarts at 76AU. I rather suspect that it does not. Instead, I consider it likely that the Kuiper 'Cliff' is exactly that; a cut-off point that extends 2000AU, all the way to the inner Oort Cloud. I suggest that this massive gap has been almost completely swept out by the Dark Star!

  I corresponded with Mari
o Melita after he published his paper, and suggested to him that a more massive Planet X might be following a more eccentric orbit. I wondered how a planetary body could have escaped detection if it was currently as close as they had speculated in their 2002 paper, even if it was currently located away from the ecliptic (where most of the searches for outer solar system bodies take place).

  Somewhat surprisingly, he agreed with me and explained that he was currently running calculations to test how a more elliptical orbit for the undiscovered planet would fit the data. As he noted in his previous paper quoted above, the effect of the object is 'roughly consistent' with current observations. Dr. Melita indicated that his results so far were encouraging, and that a more elliptical orbit for a bigger planet may create a better fit with the observed data:

  “I agree that the scenario of a more distant, more massive planet is possible. I am presently studying that possibility. In fact it seems that the agreement with the observed EKBO distribution is slightly better.”18

  The importance of this research by Drs. Brunini and Melita led New Scientist to include the findings as one of its 13 unsolved mysteries of science. Aptly numbered 10 in the series, the author of the article, Michael Brooks, explained that the Kuiper Cliff is where the density of space rocks in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt drops off dramatically. There seems to be no viable explanation except for the presence of a hidden terrestrial-sized planet exerting its influence by sweeping this area clean.

  The article then quotes Alan Stern, an astronomer at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, who remarks that the evidence for the existence of 'Planet X' is “compelling”1.19

  Reconsidering the Perihelion Distance

  It seems that observed data regarding EKBOs can be arrived at by increasing the orbital eccentricity of the proposed planet as it becomes more massive. So, a smallish terrestrial planet, perhaps a few times the mass of Mars, would create the observed effect when orbiting the sun in a roughly circular orbit, while embedded in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. If we want to consider a bigger planet, then its orbit must become more elliptical.

  Given that my interest lies in the potential for Planet X to be a small brown dwarf, the eccentricity would have to be fairly high. Which, of course, is what is anticipated for the 'planet' Nibiru as described by Zecharia Sitchin. However, this encouraging correlation would encounter severe difficulties when considering Sitchin's perihelion distance of about 4AU, i.e. the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Could Planet X cause both the observed 'sweeping out' of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt and still go on to perform a perihelion passage through the Asteroid Belt?

  To answer this, we must consider the angle of inclination of Nibiru's orbit with the ecliptic. If the Dark Star's orbit was along the plane of the other planets, then a parabolic perihelion passage might just include both the asteroid belt and parts of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. But the more inclined the orbit, the smaller the interaction between the Edgeworth-Kuiper Objects and the rogue planet. This is because the EKB is, for the most part, a flat disc

  As the orbit of a proposed brown dwarf becomes increasingly inclined to the ecliptic, then its destabilizing effect upon solar system objects increases. This is due to the "Kozai effect”, and would limit the inclination of a Jupiter-sized Planet X orbit. If the inclination is too high, the solar system would be a more chaotic place than it appears to be. The astronomer Brett Gladman explained to me that a massive undiscovered planet cannot exist with a large inclination with respect to the ecliptic because if it did “the Kozai effect would tend to destabilize the planetary orbits”.20

  It seems as though the Dark Star's orbit cannot be greatly inclined from the ecliptic. This generates a substantial problem for Zecharia Sitchin. He has argued that Nibiru moves through the planetary solar system at an angle of about 30 degrees to the ecliptic. As a result, a number of important ancient texts set out this mathematical relationship as being vital to the understanding of our Cosmos. But the Kozai effect means that such a highly inclined passage would cause chaos in the solar system if Nibiru turned out to be a very massive planet.

  So, either Nibiru is a relatively small planet, like Mars, or it behaves itself and moves along the ecliptic like the majority of the known planets. If Planet X moves along the plane of the ecliptic as it approaches the planetary zone, then it would brush past not just the EKB, but also the orbits of the outer planets. Would this not destabilize these planets in this case too?

  In 1985, Jack Hills modelled the passage of a Nemesis-type object through the planetary zone, producing a set of data analogous to the debate we're considering here. In that study, it was found that the rogue body would have to be at least 10 Jupiter masses to cause any havoc.21 So, there is clearly room for quite extreme scenarios, which will surprise many.

  But this would be applicable to a single passage of a sub-brown dwarf. If such an object moved through the planetary zone repeatedly every 3600 years, then statistically there is bound to be an observable effect generated in the orbits of the planets. Given the relatively concentric nature of the current orbits of the planets, it seems more likely that a body as sizeable as a small brown dwarf has not moved through the planetary zone for some time.

  Perhaps a smaller, terrestrial-sized Planet X could move through the planetary zone unhindered, then, as long as it wasn't unduly inclined to the ecliptic. This would be a reasonable compromise, and would work well. But it means that the Dark Star does not move closer to the sun than the Kuiper Cliff at 48AU. That marks the smallest perihelion distance possible. In fact, it may be even greater than this.

  A Further Problem for Nibiru

  The scenario outlined by Sitchin has an additional problem to face. It is clear that a planet moving through a cloud or belt of objects will substantially disrupt that body of comets. That is what is observed for long-period comets, for grooves in the rings of Saturn, and probably explains the Kuiper Gap in the EKB. So the same principle must surely apply to the Asteroid Belt.

  If Nibiru really did achieve its perihelion transit through the asteroid belt every 3600 years, this body of asteroids would have been broken up completely long ago! Its very presence suggests that Sitchin's claims must be incorrect regarding this point. The perihelion transit must occur further out.

  In that sense, my own previous speculations require more careful consideration, built as they have been upon Sitchin's original premises. Yes, a small brown dwarf need not have a large effect on the other planets during a fly-by20, but repeated passages through the planetary zone would presumably build up the probability that the eccentricity of the planetary orbits would eventually be affected. That they are observed to be relatively stable reflects the likelihood that Planet X's transgressions are experienced beyond the outer planets. And the more massive Planet X is said to be, the more likely this argument holds.

  Yet, there is a tremendous body of evidence to suggest that an anomalous planet has been observed by humans in the past, and that it is somehow connected with the enigmatic concept of Nibiru. A brown dwarf in the EKB is too distant to be observed. This means that there is still a piece of the jigsaw missing. Something penetrates into the planetary zone and becomes visible to the unaided eye. The question is; what? We will ponder this problem in the next chapter.

  Predictions

  Given the good data set astronomers have collated about the Kuiper Cliff cut-off at 48AU, the likelihood is that this feature in the EKB does indeed mark the edge of the effect caused by Nibiru's perihelion 'sweep'. Its actual perihelion distance would be further out still. Also, its eccentricity would be substantially greater than that envisioned by Brunini and Melita in their 2002 paper. The scope for improvement in their model rests with the semi-major axis and eccentricity, allowing for an object that achieves aphelion much further from the sun than 78AU.

  Our current knowledge of objects orbiting the sun beyond 76AU is very patchy at best. The resumption of scattered disc objects beyond this distance is an expectation
according to theoretical models, rather than a fact based upon empirical data. If the scattered disc objects beyond 76AU actually aren't there in any great numbers, then a more eccentric, and probably mildly inclined orbit would be the conclusion drawn. Because something would have to be removing the comets from the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt at these distances. And I suspect this will prove to be the case.

  So instead of Planet X being embedded in the EKB at the relative close proximity of ~60AU, its aphelion distance could prove to be much, much further out. The Kuiper Cliff phenomenon could have been created by Planet X repeatedly cutting through the disc as it approaches its perihelion passage. This scenario seems consistent with the work of the astronomer Jack Hills, who considered the effect of a passage of a small dwarf 'star' through the solar system, and the orbital configuration for that body if it were to become captured by the sun.21 As I've discussed before22, his mathematical modelling allowed him to conclude that such a massive body could even be captured by the sun into a weakly bound orbit which was both highly eccentric and prone to dissociation.

  I believe that the Dark Star did once upon a time move among the planets, causing disruption at that time. Long since then, the planets have migrated back into stable orbits, and the Dark Star has been exiled to a place beyond the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, where it continues to roam in an eccentric fashion.

  References

  1 J. Davies “Beyond Pluto” Cambridge University Press 2001

  2 J-M. Petit, A. Morbidelli & G. Valsecchi “Large Scattered Planetesimals and the Excitation of the Small Body Belts” Icarus, 141, 367-387 (1999)