The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (21 page)

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.

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-by
²⁰
, 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.

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 before
²²
, 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.

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)

³
B. Gladman, M. Holman, T. Grav, J. Kavelaars, P. Nicholson, K.
Aksnes & J-M. Petit “Evidence for an Extended Disk” Icarus, 157, pp269-79
(2002)

⁴
S. Ida, J. Larwood & A. Burkett “Evidence for Early Stellar
Encounters in the Orbital Distribution of Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects” The
Astrophysical Journal, 528: pp351-6, (2000)

⁵
J. Kelly Beatty “Bigorbit Object Confounds Dynamicists”
http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml#bigorbit
5th April 2001

⁶
C.I.T. News Release “Planetoid found in Kuiper Belt, maybe the
biggest yet” 20th February 2004,
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/20kuiper/

⁷
R. Allen, G. Bernstein & R. Malhotra “The Edge of the Solar
System”, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 241-4, 2001

⁸
R. Allen, G. Bernstein & R. Malhotra “Observational Limits on
a Distant Cold Kuiper Belt” AJ, astroph/0209421v1, 2002

⁹
R.L. Allen “Current Research:Observational Limits on the Distant
Kuiper Belt”
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~lallen/kbo/thesis.html

¹⁰
Brunini & M. Melita “The Existence of a Planet beyond 50AU
and the Orbital Distribution of the Classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects”
Icarus, 160, pp32-43 (2002), extract reproduced with kind permission of Dr.
Mario Melita

¹¹
Correspondence from Dr. Brett Gladman, 24th January 2003

¹²
H. Couper & N. Henbest “The Hunt for Planet X” New Scientist,
pp30-4, 14th December 2002

¹³
C. Trujillo & M. Brown “A correlation between inclination and
color in the classical Kuiper Belt” The Astrophysics Journal 566, pp125-128
(2002)

¹⁴
S. Collander-Brown, A. Fitzsimmons, E. Fletcher, M. Irwin and I.
Williams “The Scattered Trans-Neptunian Object 1998 XY95” Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc 325, pp972-78 (2001)

¹⁵
C. Arthur “More signs that solar system has tenth planet”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=360803
12 December 2002

¹⁶
M. Hazlewood “Delicate Earth History Science Planet X” 2003

¹⁷
Dr Irving Finkel (Assistant Keeper, Cuneiform Collections) in
'Waiting for the Apocalypse' Video, by 'The Clockwork Team', (consisting of
Parameshwaran Ravindranathan, Samit Basu and Jaideep Undurti) © University of
Westminster 2003

¹⁸
Correspondence from Mario Melita, 15th January 2003, reproduced
with kind permission

¹⁹
M. Brooks “13 things that do not make sense“ New Scientist, p30,
19th March 2005, with thanks to Peter Gersten

²⁰
Correspondence from Brett Gladman, 30th January 2003

²¹
J.G. Hills “The Passage of a 'Nemesis'-like object through the
Planetary System” Astron. J. 90, Number 9, 1876-1882 (1985)

²²
A. Lloyd “Winged Disc: The Dark Star Theory” MSS 2001

13. Planet of Crossing

We established in the last chapter that the Dark Star no longer
moves through the planetary zone. Scientific evidence points to its existence
beyond the recorded limits of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. It presence there is
felt by the objects that move through that belt; some of them show signs of
being acutely affected by an external influence such as the Dark Star. We will
go on later to look at these examples.

But the last chapter also brought up the problem of the visible
appearance of Nibiru. If Nibiru is the Dark Star and it lies more than 50AU
away, then it is invisible to us for the entire term of its orbit. It could
never have been seen from Earth. Yet Sitchin's account of Nibiru describes a
highly observable phenomenon, one held in high esteem by the ancient
Mesopotamians.

As we saw in Chapter 2, the account of Nibiru is based upon
Sitchin's reading of the
Enuma Elish,
the Babylonian creation myth. This
apparently outlines the creation of the asteroid belt from the partial destruction
of the watery 'planet' Tiamat by the planet/star Marduk, whose 49th name is
Nibiru. Marduk itself appears to be the Dark Star. So what is this visible
phenomenon called Nibiru?