The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (14 page)

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 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.

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?

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.