The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence
Page 20
This situation is consistent with my previous claims about migration patterns of the Dark Star, and the consequent effect of changes on the orbital energies of the planets. This is an important point to discuss. If a Dark Star is moving around out there in a migratory way over the lifetime of the solar system, its angular momentum has been changing during that time. Given its distance and mass, such changes would be considerable in relation to the solar system's angular momentum as a whole, which needs to be preserved. So this would imply a counter-active migration of the other planets in response, possibly leading to great climatic changes on Earth, as well as on the other planets during their geological histories.
You see, the more mechanisms that astronomers have to call upon to explain the varied patterns of extrasolar planetary orbits and proto-planetary discs, the more flexible the concepts of planet formation and migration must become. Instead of making the existence of a binary companion less plausible, such variety helps us argue the case for keeping our options open.
It seems quite reasonable to me that the chaos of the early solar system could have left us with a rogue massive planet out there, whose current pattern of migration and movement urgently needs assessing. This is because it is not an isolated body whose effect on the rest of the solar system is negligible. Even though it may be found at a great distance, its sheer size means that its influence on the solar system as a whole may be non-negligible. It may explain a great many anomalies pertaining to our own planet's varied geological history, too.
Nibiru, Once Again...
The Dark Star may have formed alongside the sun as a bound companion, burning brightly as a young brown dwarf. It may have had an eccentric orbit that brought it into the planetary zone of the primitive solar system, where it interacted with the Water World 'Tiamat' as described by Sitchin. This interaction may have disrupted the natural order of the planetary system, causing the primordial Tiamat to migrate into the inner solar system, where it subsequently lost the vast majority of its water and became Earth.
The Dark Star may then have migrated out of the planetary zone sufficiently to affect only the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt from then on, despite maintaining a relatively high eccentricity. This encounter with the sun's inner planets early in the life of the solar system might have caused the Dark Star to become rather more attached to the sun than it normally would have, preventing its loss to the system by 'binary dissociation'.
The observed phenomenon of Nibiru's presence is purported to have a cycle of 3,600 years or so. This may vary over time, depending upon how loosely bound the Dark Star is. Science may soon spring the Dark Star from the hat - running through an eccentric orbit which takes it from the edge of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt all the way out to the inner Oort Cloud. Such a discovery would explain why the ancients kept watch for this mythological planet (as well as a few modern 'believers' and their rather unorthodox priesthood!). It would explain why the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter hasn't been completely 'swept out' by now, as it should have been had Nibiru passed that way every 3600 years. It would stop us from having to worry about the Kozai effect which has been used to criticize a highly inclined perihelion transit through the planetary zone.
It would explain the early migration of the Earth to a location where it should be completely bone dry, yet isn't. It might explain how Neptune and Uranus are found so far away from the sun, where the accretion time for them to form should be prohibitively long. It would explain the Late Heavy Bombardment. Most of all, it would explain the observed phenomenon of the gap in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, that has got the astronomers stumped. In fact, as we have seen, it's the only viable scenario to explain this last issue.
Planet X As A Moon of the Dark Star?
If we are to consider the possibility that ancient peoples on our planet were intimately aware of the comings and goings of the Dark Star, then we need to understand how they portrayed that understanding. We have looked at the myths of ancient Mesopotamia, but they are not to be held in isolation. This book is primarily aimed at answering the scientific questions raised by a binary companion to the sun, but a lot of my research over the years has looked at its symbolism.
It is beyond the scope of this book to move into that territory in any great detail, but I believe that I have adequately established an association between the Dark Star and seven other stars. These presumably constitute the Dark Star's own system of planets. One of them seems to become visible at some point during the perihelion passage of the Dark Star through the outer solar system.
The appearance of this mysterious and mythical planet is varied, taking on many forms. One of its descriptions is that of 'Phaeton', and in their book "When the Earth Nearly Died", authors D. Allan and J Delair speculate about how the planet's actual appearance could have produced the multitude of mythical image attached to it down the ages. They have created drawings showing how the 4 most significant moons and the tail would change the overall appearance of the Phaeton Phenomenon as it moved through the heavens, and the moons orbited around it.14
Note the appearance of 4 moons; does Nibiru bring its own entourage? Is it possible that companion moons could be visible at such great distances? Or, is it simply that the incursion of the planet Nibiru through the outer solar system is coincident with a great hail of other cosmic debris; comets from the Dark Star's own sphere of influence.
If the moons/planets/comets orbiting the Dark Star Nibiru were very widely distributed, as the researcher John Lee has suggested in the past, it creates a complex situation which might then explain the sheer diversity of symbolism employed by various cultures. John argues that the Dark Star should not be definitively associated with the myths of Pheaton and Nibiru/ Marduk, as its orbit is likely to be wider and of longer duration than 3600 years, or thereabouts. So there is little need to tie its existence in with myth at all, from John's point of view. This is a valuable opinion, requiring us to bear in mind that although science seems to be moving towards its existence, that doesn't necessarily mean that it must end up being entwined in ancient myth.
However, I believe that the various myths do lead us to the Dark Star, in the same way that the science now being played out in observatories and academic halls is moving in the self-same direction. As such, I think the symbolism, as varied and complex as it is, should be taken into account. But the symbolism can only tell us part of the story; that of the observable, visible phenomenon. There may be more to it than that. We must be cautious of crossing the Rubicon just yet.
Perihelion and Heliopause
If we accept that the gap in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt is to be attributed to the proximity of the Dark Star at perihelion, then how close does it approach that gap, or indeed the sun itself? According to Quillen, this is heavily dependent upon the eccentricity of the orbit of the binary companion, more so than its actual mass.4 There is a relationship involved called the Lindblad Resonance, where there is a 2:1 relationship between the binary companion's orbit and the inner belt of the primary affected. If, in the sun's case, its belt is truncated at about 48AU, then this implies an interactive planetary orbit at about 70-80AU.
Now, if the orbit is highly eccentric, which the Dark Star's must be, then this value does not apply to a simple circular orbit at this position, or within it.5 Instead, it may apply to the effect over time of a distant planet sweeping through that area over many, many orbits. Does this relationship help us to define the Dark Star's perihelion distance? Can that lead us to an understanding of what effect upon the sun the Dark Star is capable of?
There's not a lot of interesting real estate out at 80AU. The only feature of interest is a boundary known as the heliopause, which lies a little further out than this. At least, that's what the astronomers think anyway. They don't actually know yet, but are hoping that data from several spacecraft might be able to enlighten them. Is the position of the heliopause significant?
The heliopause marks a boundary for the Solar Wind, and is a feature of the extende
d magnetic field of the sun. At the heliopause, the Solar Wind meets the plasma fields of interstellar space, creating a magnetized bow-shock as the sun moves along. This bow-shock is most likely to reside between 110 - 160 AU from the sun.15 This means that the Dark Star must move through this boundary twice during its perihelion passage, once on the way towards perihelion, and again as it moves away. The Dark Star will also have its own magnetosphere; a rather substantial one in fact.
The shape of the heliopause is currently not known, but is thought to resemble the planetary magnetospheres surrounding some of the sun's family. The magnetopsheres are created by the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetic field of these planets, including the Earth, and they serve to protect the planets from some of the sun's bombardment of hot, charged particles, or plasma. The influx of these charged particles into the polar regions of the Earth creates the 'Aurora Borealis', or Northern Lights, an effect which is repeated on Saturn and Jupiter on a massive scale.
The Dark Star seems to lie roughly in the direction of the Solar Apex, or the point in space towards which the sun is traveling. If that is the case, then the Dark Star will be in the forward direction of the bow-shock of the sun's magnetosphere, or heliopause. Thus, the heliopause will have the lowest distance at this point from the sun.
The heliopause is literally buffeted back from the interstellar medium here, the exact distance of which is determined by many factors, including the current velocity of the Solar Wind and the local density of the interstellar medium. The shape of the heliopause, once known, may also hold clues as to the sun's interaction with the Dark Star's own magnetosphere. The four space probes from the Voyager and Pioneer missions may one day provide some data on this.
The region of the heliopause is an active one, because the sun's charged particles in the Solar Wind encounter resistance at this boundary, and warm up. There is a termination shockwave here, just within the heliopause.16 This is without the action of another massive body, but occurs simply because of the interaction between the sun's magnetosphere and the environment within which it moves.
How much bigger is the likely effect, then, when the extended magnetic fields of the Dark star and the sun interact directly?
The Cosmic Light Show
Let us consider whether the Dark Star, as an old and small sub-brown dwarf, becomes more active as it interacts with the 'termination shock' of the Solar Wind. Upon arriving at the termination shock, the Dark Star might flare up dramatically, with an auroral and atmospheric light-show several orders of magnitude greater than normal. After all, it will meet a relatively dense and warm layer of highly energized, negatively accelerating particles forming a considerable shockwave.
One only needs to consider the magnetosphere of Jupiter to realize how strong the interaction between this gas giant's magnetic field and that of the sun is.17 If Jupiter's magnetosphere was visible in the night sky, it would appear about four times the diameter of the Moon. Yet, Jupiter is five times further away from us at opposition than the sun. Its magnetosphere tails back as far as Saturn's orbit.
If the Dark star has an even greater magnetic field, as its greater density implies - then its interaction with the Solar Wind will be proportionately greater. Even if one bears in mind the fact that it is much further away, and the density of the solar wind drops off as a result, the reaction at the actual bow-shock of the heliopause will still create a significant effect.
This begs the question: when the in-bound Dark Star reaches the heliopause would the resultant electro-magnetic interaction create a flaring effect that could actually be visible from the Earth? Would the embers of the sub-brown dwarf ignite once again to shine brightly, even in the depths of the void?
This is a second possibility, which might explain the sudden observable appearance of 'Nibiru'. The effect would be like that of an intruder cutting through a perimeter fence and setting off the alarm. Whilst in the grounds, the intruder would remain in the shadows, only to set the alarm off again upon exiting the perimeter some time later. The actual affect would be sudden and transitory; a bright red glow in the sky centred upon a single light source; that of the excited Dark Star. It would be repeated some years later, in a different part of the sky.
This is speculative, but it might be possible that the sun and Dark Star would cause each other's magnetic fields to charge up dramatically at that boundary crossing near, or within, the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Like a cactus in the desert, the binary companion's flowering would be fleeting, but, under the gaze of the sun, beautiful. Perhaps, the sun would respond in kind with a massive Coronal Mass Ejection, or such like.
There should be no doubts about the exceptionally strong effect of the Solar Wind on a gas giant's magnetosphere. A “pulsating auroral hot-spot” was discovered on Jupiter in 2002, emitting large quantities of X-rays.18,19 How much more activity would be observed on an orbiting brown dwarf, I wonder? It also seems likely to me that the sun's entire, extended magnetic field could be strongly affected by such an interaction, to the extent that some kind of reversal of the solar magnetic field might take place. It's a remarkable thought, and not without precedent.
Reversal of the Neutral Sheet
It may be that the sun's own field may also be affected by the Dark Star's perihelion passage. Could this be the reason for the alleged reversal of the Neutral Sheet every 3740 years, as proposed by Maurice Cotterell?
The standard sunspot cycle occurs every 11.5 years, a fact that is well known. Cotterell set about examining the relationship between the Earth's orbit, and the sun's different rates of magnetic field rotation at the solar poles and equator. This function he called the "rotational differentiation".
This leads to a fundamental sunspot cycle of 11.4929 years, and a greater recurring cycle of 187 years duration. Further mathematical analysis led Cotterell to conclude that a greater cycle still can be deduced, one that is 1,366,040 days long, or 3,740 years. This represents the complete reversal of the neutral sheet of the solar system. The flip itself is not instantaneous, but would take two of the 187 year cycles to complete.20
This work fascinated me, because it indicated that the sun's cycles may be affected by an outside agent. A sub-brown dwarf periodically moving through the sun's massive and extended magnetic field would surely be enough to do the trick? How else could one explain such a regular, but momentous change in the sun's complete magnetic field?
But it was not clear from the book that Cotterell co-wrote with Adrian Gilbert, just when such an event would have taken place during the historical period. If this was to be tied in with the appearance of Nibiru, then such a question would be of fundamental importance. An opportunity presented itself to contact Maurice Cotterell, who was very illuminating in his correspondence:
“The sun reverses its magnetic field periodically. We know that ice ages correspond to solar magnetic activity. In effect the sun sucks-in and then blows out every 3,750 years. Charged dust particles would hence sometimes be sucked-in (depending on the polarity of the sun's magnetic fields) and then again blown-away, as the polarity changed...
Now; if the sun's magnetic field twists (the last time was in 3113 BC) then planets in close proximity have a propensity to topple as they are magnetically coupled. This happened to Venus in 3113BC, and explains why Venus now spins backwards and why the Maya refer to the event as 'the birth of Venus'. However, the magnetic twist on that occasion, did not topple the Earth...Now 3113BC (minus) plus 3,740 years (one neutral sheet shift) = 627AD, meaning that the last solar magnetic twist occurred in 627AD (clearly neither Venus nor Earth flipped)”.21
Cotterell's ideas about global catastrophe connected with cosmic events are clearly Velikovskian, although Maurice did point out to me that he did not consider it particularly worthwhile to seek a 'Dark Star' to explain such events. Instead, as our ability to discover data increased scientifically, then so would the chances of finding out causal factors. Until then, we are better off working with what we have got. He links
the timing of the last reversal of the neutral sheet to events dated in Mayan myth, rather than specific scientific evidence.
The Inevitable Question
This seems to me to leave the timing of Cotterell's proposed magnetic change as a rather open question, as I'm personally not convinced by the 'birth of Venus' argument. But the date he refers to is also Day One of the Olmec/Mayan/Aztec calendar, i.e. 13th August 3113BC. I believe that the appearance of Nibiru was of such significance to the ancients, that they started their calendar cycles at that point. This may be true of the South American peoples as much as it is true of the Sumerians of Nippur and, dare I say, Christians.
Richard Day ponders the timing of Nibiru in this South American context, which he finds coincidental with the founding of the first Pharaonic dynasty. Such a timing would also have brought Nibiru back around the time of the birth of the prophet Mohammed.22 Although, by this time the observation records of the heavens were much better than ancient times, particularly among the Arabs, so one would have expected a recorded event in historical astronomy. Of course, if the religion of the Muslims was in some way tied in with the appearance of Nibiru, then this might explain the origin of the Star and Crescent symbol, whose genesis is also very much an open question.
The question as to the exact timing of Nibiru is one that has been long contested by various researchers. The question of the return of the Dark Star is one of the great unknowns in this field of eclectic study, and I am more open to the various possibilities than ever: Particularly, as we consider the perihelion passage to be at the edge of the solar system. This opens things right up. Is the 3750 year cycle due imminently, in 2012, for instance, allowing us to incorporate Cotterell's and Day's Mayan connection? Or, was the last event one that occurred 2000 years ago? Or, is there another possibility entirely?