Dark Star News Archive 2011-12

Planets form around Binary Systems

 

One of the arguments levelled against the possibility that our Sun might have a distant binary companion is that the planetary system would not have formed under such conditions.  Simply put, the dual 'star' system would be too complex to allow a relatively stable system of planets to form, like that observed in our own solar system.  Part of the reason for that position is the traditional model of how planets form in the first place.  But there's also the question of the dynamics of such a complex system, and how the orbits of planets would be perturbed by such complexity over time.  That issue includes the 'Kosai' effect, which might limit the parameters for a binary sub-brown dwarf companion. 

Well, that whole position is now brought into question by the discovery of a planetary system around a distant binary star system in the Cygnus constellation.  Remarkably, one of the planets discovered there, orbiting two suns, is in their 'habitable zone'.  But amazing as that is, that is not the main repercussion of this discovery.  Instead, the whole theory of planet formation - already rocked by so many bizarre extra-solar planet discoveries - finds itself in urgent need of reformation:

"The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," said Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks." (1)

Further, the potential for our own Sun to have had a brown dwarf companion at some point in its history - as hinted at by many experts on the outer solar system - is enhanced by this finding.  Indeed, I wonder whether the perturbing influence of a double stellar system is actually required to create the lumps of accreting matter in the proto-planetary disks from which planets form.  I wonder whether one day we might consider the traditional model of massive planets somehow forming out of a unperturbed, uniform disk to have been a rather quaint concept, but one that was, in hindsight, totally misguided.  Instead, it is the influence of the companion, notable in most star systems, that allows for the creative tension in the planet-forming disk of matter common to both 'stars'.  And by stars, we can mean stellar bodies right down to the sub-brown dwarf companion that might be our own Dark Star.

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, 5th September 2012

Reference:

1) "Binary Star Systems may be 'Hot Zones' for Life - New NASA Discovery" 4th September 2012 http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/are-binary-star-systems-hot-zones-for-life-new-nasa-discovery-suggests-yes.html#more with thanks to Lee

 

Late, Great Bombardment Event Seen Affecting Nearby Star System

NASA have discovered evidence for a massive comet swarm causing trouble in the nearby star system of Eta Corvi. I'm struck by the magnitude of the comet swarm discussed, and how it equates with the Sun's Late, Heavy Bombardment around 3.9 billion years ago - which occurred some time after the formation of the solar system.  This event is likely to have been Sitchin's great Celestial Battle between the watery planet Tiamat (Earth's precursor) and Marduk (the rogue Dark Star, which crashed through the solar system). 

Here's what NASA have to say about their astonishing discovery:

 

"This artist's conception (right) illustrates a storm of comets around a star near our own, called Eta Corvi. Evidence for this barrage comes from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, whose infrared detectors picked up indications that comets were recently torn to shreds after colliding with a rocky body.

"Yellow-white Eta Corvi is shown to the left, with comets streaming toward it. Spitzer detected spectral signatures of water ice, organics and rock around Eta Corvi -- key ingredients of comets.  

"This is the first time that evidence for such a comet storm has been seen around another star. Eta Corvi is the right age, about one billion years old, to experience a bombardment of comets akin to what occurred in our own solar system at 600 to 800 millions years of age, termed the Late Heavy Bombardment.

"Scientists say the Late Heavy Bombardment was triggered in our solar system by the migration of our outer planets, which jostled icy comets about, sending some of them flying inward. The incoming comets scarred our moon and pummelled our inner planets. They may have even brought materials to Earth that helped kick start life." (1)

The question remains - what causes comet swarms such as these?  In the history of the solar system, bombardments of this intensity were thankfully rare. One can only surmise that something extraordinary triggered them. As noted above, the prevalent view at the moment in the scientific community is that such an event was caused by the migration of the Sun's outer planets Neptune and Uranus.  But in turn, what actually triggered that event? 

Another explanation might be the perturbing influence of a massive binary companion whose own orbit is not as stable as those planets nearer to the parent star.  What would be remarkable indeed would be if Eva Corvi were found to have such a companion object - perhaps a sub-brown dwarf in a wide, elongated orbit. If so, it would lend credibility to the idea that the Sun's Late, Great bombardment was caused by a rogue Dark Star of its own.

 

Andy Lloyd, 23rd July 2012

Reference

1) "A Storm of Comets Around Star Eta Corvi" 23rd July 2012 http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2314.html With thanks to David. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.

 

How the Moon was Created

A new essay by Andy Lloyd, updated 29/7/12:

How the Moon was Made

 

 

The Syrian Connection

Author and Sitchinite researcher Michael Tellinger has written extensively about the mystery of the ancient stone enclosures spread widely across the southern African landscape (above left).  He has made connections with Sitchin's description of this area's importance to the Anunnaki, particularly in terms of gold mining.  Well, it appears that these same mysterious structures appear elsewhere, this time in the Middle East's Syrian Desert (above right).  Read more about the connection here, accompanied by the usual mind-wrenching dose of speculation:

The Syrian Connection

 

WISE spots less neighbouring Brown Dwarfs than hoped

The first findings of WISE's search for brown dwarfs near to the Sun have been released.  They appear to show less than expected within 26 light years, although that's still a fair few at over 30. 

"Astronomers are getting to know the neighbors better.  Our sun resides within a spiral arm of our Milky Way galaxy about two- thirds of the way out from the center. It lives in a fairly calm, suburb-like area with an average number of stellar residents.  Recently, NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, has been turning up a new crowd of stars close to home: the coldest of the brown dwarf family of "failed" stars.

"Determining the distances to these objects is a key factor in knowing their population density in our solar neighborhood. After carefully measuring the distance to several of the coldest brown dwarfs via a method called parallax, the scientists were able to estimate the distances to all the newfound brown dwarfs. They concluded that about 33 brown dwarfs reside within 26 light-years of sun. There are 211 stars within this same volume of space, so that means there are about six stars for every brown dwarf.

""Having fewer brown dwarfs than expected in our celestial backyard just means that each new one we discover plays a critical role in our overall understanding of these cold objects," said Chris Gelino, a co-author of the new research who is also at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center. "These brown dwarfs are fascinating objects that are bridging the gap between the coldest stars and Jupiter." Kirkpatrick emphasized that the results are still preliminary: it is highly likely that WISE will discover additional Y dwarfs, but not in vast numbers, and probably not closer than the closest known star, Proxima Centauri. Those discoveries could bring the ratio of brown dwarfs to stars up a bit, to about 1:5 or 1:4, but not to the 1:1 level previously anticipated." (1)
 

I guess if we're honest, on the face of it this isn't terribly good news - statistically, at least, the potential for a solar system sub-brown dwarf companion is a little lower than it was, say, 6 months ago. 
 
But... spotting these objects is more complex than the article perhaps allows for, although it's clear that Dr Kirkpatrick is entirely aware of this.  There are a great many objects out there with IR signatures that WISE will have picked up.  Finding a BD very close to us involves both the discovery of a signature heat source, but also, and more importantly, the perception of movement of that source over a six month period.  Given the short shelf-life of the WISE telescope, then making those parallax measurements consistently for all data points is bound to be a less than perfect procedure.  Matese et al have already alluded to this potential for a short-fall in BD discoveries with WISE, effectively raising the possibility of a false negative (2).
 
Also bear in mind recent speculation by some serious astronomers that BDs might be extremely numerous across the galaxy, particularly as dark interstellar objects, and we have an inconsistent picture emerging - both a high number generally, but a low number locally.  This paradox may indicate that WISE has not picked up everything out there that it should have, and not just the Y-Dwarfs as described above.  If the Sun has a companion object, it is likely to be one of these ultra-small sub-brown dwarfs - the so-called Y-dwarfs.  So WISE may yet come up with the goods, even if the statistics are leaning against it.

Andy Lloyd, 12th June 2012
 

References

1) "WISE finds few brown dwarfs close to home" June 8, 2012 http://phys.org/news/2012-06-wise-brown-dwarfs-home.html  with thanks to David and Mart

2)  John Matese & Daniel Whitmire "Searching the WISE Preliminary Catalog for Massive Planets in the Solar System" EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2011, Nantes, France, 2-7th October 2011,  http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638/Nantes.pdf 

 

 

Astronomers Consider a Massive Planet X Solution

The anomalous orbits of several Kuiper Belt Objects have caused another prominent astronomers to speculate on the existence of a massive Planet X:

"An as yet undiscovered planet might be orbiting at the dark fringes of the solar system, according to new research. Too far out to be easily spotted by telescopes, the potential unseen planet appears to be making its presence felt by disturbing the orbits of so-called Kuiper belt objects, said Rodney Gomes, an astronomer at the National Observatory of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro.

"What's intriguing, Gomes said, is that, according to his new calculations, about a half dozen Kuiper belt objects—including the remote body known as Sedna—are in strange orbits compared to where they should be, based on existing solar system models. The objects' unexpected orbits have a few possible explanations, said Gomes, who presented his findings Tuesday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Timberline Lodge, Oregon.  "But I think the easiest one is a planetary-mass solar companion"—a planet that orbits very far out from the sun but that's massive enough to be having gravitational effects on Kuiper belt objects."

Other astronomers are intrigued but say they'll want a lot more proof before they're willing to agree that the solar system—again—has nine planets. (1)

Gomes is sticking his head on the block with this.  I suspect the general position for astronomers interested in the outer solar system is this:  the evidence is shifting fairly rapidly towards there being a massive outer planet in a strange, elongated orbit around the Sun.  The two major factors increasing the probability of this are (a) anomalies in the outer solar system which indicate the presence of a perturbing object and (b) the increasing evidence of a vast swath of rogue, dark planetary objects in interstellar space, to the extent that these old, cold brown dwarfs might even account for the galaxy's missing mass (2).  Given the statistics of this kind of scenario, in my opinion, it would now be odd if the Sun didn't have a companion object.  I suspect the vast majority of stars have binary companions, whether stellar or dark.
 
Astronomers still don't want to be associated with the Planet X/Nibiru debate, for fear of destroying their academic reputations.  Dr Gomes is breaking away from the pack, as several other astronomers have done before him.  I applaud that, but it's also interesting to see the measured, sceptical response levelled at him by his peers.  They haven't exactly ripped into him, but they're clearly reticent about supporting this move without a great deal more direct evidence of this unseen companion.  But instead of a knee-jerk wholly negative reaction to this new claim for a massive Planet X, I sense that they're hedging their position, which is very encouraging...

Andy Lloyd, 15th May 2012

References

1) Richard Lovett "New Planet Found in Our Solar System?" 11th May 2012, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120511-new-planet-solar-system-kuiper-belt-space-science/  with thanks to David who submitted this article to the Dark Star Discussion Group.

2) Eddie Wrenn "Could billions upon billions of free-floating 'nomadic' planets in the Milky Way be seeding our galaxy with life?" 11th May 2012  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142948/Could-billions-billions-free-floating-nomadic-planets-Milky-Way-seeding-galaxy-life.html#ixzz1ugt9YW8O with thanks to Mart

 

 

Scientists Also Now Think the Earth Migrated

Migration of planets is the new zeitgeist.  Academic astronomers and science commentators are fighting an increasingly rearguard action to fend off the accusation that new theories of solar system formation are sounding ever more Sitchinite.  Why?  Because the solar system appears to be a far more complex beast than the old theories allowed, and discoveries in other extra-solar planetary systems indicate the central importance of catastrophism.  Many astronomers now believe that star systems kick out planets routinely during their formation, and also, due to the subsequent abundance of free-floating planets, draw new planets in.

Well, that whole concept is equal in every way to Sitchin's theory from 1976.  And now we're moving one step closer towards a union of science and Sitchin, as Earth's origins themselves are considered:

""Planets don't like to stay still, they like to move," said David Minton of Purdue University at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md., on April 10. This is proven by the discovery of hundreds of extrasolar planets that reinforce a radical new idea that would have never even been considered in the 1950s: Planet migration seems the rule rather than the exception among the stars. This explains the estimate of billions of "hot Jupiters," which are predicted to have moved to orbits precariously close to their stars - to the point of evaporating away. More recent discoveries find pure water planets that must have migrated in toward their sun as ice balls." (1)

As my friend Lee succinctly put it, "This fella has it ass-backward, but it shows they're trying to understand why Earth is where it is" (2).  What he means by this is that the David Minton thinks the Earth migrated from a more inner location, whereas we think there is strong evidence that the opposite is true, i.e. that Earth migrated after a catastrophic event from the region of the asteroid belt.  But the underlying principle is the same.  And if the conservatives in the science community feel uncomfortable with all this, then it's tough.  If facts move us in the direction of Sitchin's Nibiru being a real possibility, then they should be open to that, no matter what their prejudices may allow.

Andy Lloyd, 21st April 2012

Reference:

1) Ray Villard "Was Earth a Migratory Planet?" 18th April 2012 http://news.discovery.com/space/was-earth-a-migratory-planet-120418.html with thanks to Lee

2) Correspondence from Lee Covino, 20th April 2012

 

Water Planet May Hold the Secrets of Tiamat

Scientists have discovered an extra-solar planet, larger than Earth, almost entirely made up of water.  They were able to look at the spectrum of light from the planet's atmosphere - a planet which lies very close to its parent red dwarf star.  That spectrum showed water - lots of it.  And because the astronomers have good data on the planet's other properties, they were able to discern that this was indeed almost entirely a watery world: 

"Since the planet's mass and size are known, astronomers can calculate the density, of only about 2 grams per cubic centimetre. Water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimetre, while Earth's average density is 5.5 grams per cubic centimetre. This suggests that GJ 1214b has much more water than Earth does, and much less rock.  As a result, the internal structure of GJ 1214b would be extraordinarily different from that of our world.

"The high temperatures and high pressures would form exotic materials like 'hot ice' or 'superfluid water', substances that are completely alien to our everyday experience," [Zachory] Berta [of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] said.  Theorists expect that GJ 1214b formed further out from its star, where water ice was plentiful, and migrated inward early in the system's history. In the process, it would have passed through the star's habitable zone, where surface temperatures would be similar to Earth's. How long it lingered there is unknown." (1)

The last part of the above quote is particularly interesting to me.  Those of us interested in Zecharia Sitchin's theories are familiar with his proposition that Earth was once a larger, more watery world lying where the Asteroid Belt is now.  Sitchin proposed that this primordial planet, the mythological Tiamat of the Babylonian Epic of Creation the Enuma Elish, was battered by a moon of Marduk (the rogue interloper, or Dark Star) and migrated in to a closer orbit around the Sun (an event likely to be during the Late Heavy Bombardment 3.9 billion years ago (2)).  The remains of Tiamat were thus distributed as Earth and the Asteroid Belt. 

What a fascinating parallel with the extra-solar planet GJ 1214B!  This planet is also made up primarily of water, and migrated in towards its star, passing through the star's habitable zone.

Andy Lloyd, 29th February 2012

References:

1)  "In distance space [sic], a water world: Hubble reveals a new class of extrasolar planet" 21st February 2012 http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-hubble-reveals-class-extrasolar-planet.html with thanks to Theo, et al

2) "Asteroids Smacked Moon Stronger & Faster 4 Billion Years Ago" 28th Feb 2012 http://www.space.com/14700-moon-craters-asteroids-impact-lunar-cataclysm.html with thanks to Lee

 

The Free-Floating Planet Solution

A Steppenwolf Planet?

Could life exist on a planet in the outer solar system that is not warmed by a brown dwarf?  This is a critical question for Zecharia Sitchin's "12th Planet Theory". Even towards the end of his life, he maintained that it was possible: That the atmosphere of Nibiru would be warmed internally by geothermal and radioactive activity within the planet.  I argued against this possibility - the Nibiruan atmosphere would simply become mile-high sheet of volatile ices spread evenly across the planet's surface. Which, of course, would be incompatible with life.

Well, scientists have recently become interested in this very question, and have modelled circumstances in which a sub-glacial ocean might exist on a 'rogue' planet too far from the Sun to be warmed by it.  Here's the abstract of a paper by Dr Abbot (a geophysicist) and Dr Switzer (an academic astrophysicist):

"We investigate the possibility that a rogue planet could maintain a liquid ocean under layers of thermally insulating water ice and frozen gas as a result of geothermal heat flux. We find that a rogue planet of Earth-like composition and age could maintain a subglacial liquid ocean if it were ≈3.5 times more massive than Earth, corresponding to ≈8 km of ice. Suppression of the melting point by contaminants, a layer of frozen gas, or a larger complement of water could significantly reduce the planetary mass that is required to maintain a liquid ocean. Such a planet could be detected from reflected solar radiation, and its thermal emission could be characterized in the far-IR if it were to pass within O(1000) AU of Earth." (1)

This would have given Mr Sitchin some succour, I think. However, I think it's fair to point out that were life to exist on such a world, it would be living beneath 8 kilometres thickness of ice!  Which is not exactly the scenario he had in mind for his Anunnaki.  But, the bigger the planet, the less of an icy shield would be required to create this Europa-type world in the outer solar system.  And Sitchin's planet, as we know, is supposed to be very massive.  So, food for thought.

Written by Andy Lloyd, 14th February 2012

 

1) D. S. Abbot and E. R. Switzer "The Steppenwolf: A Proposal for a Habitable Planet in Outer Space"  The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735:L27 (4pp), 2011 July 10, with thanks to Lorenzo

 

Planet X Nibiru Conference, Rome 29th January 2012

Andy Lloyd was the keynote speaker at the "Planet X Nibiru Conference" in Rome, on Sunday 29th January 2012 - organised by Massimo Fratini.  Devoted to the subject of Planet X Nibiru and 2012, Andy had been invited to return to Rome to discuss the very latest news about the hunt for Planet X, as well as whether the end of the Mayan Calendar will bring forth catastrophe from the sky.  Other speakers included Massimo Fratini, Enrico Baccarini, Mauro Biglino and Ivan Ceci. 

Here's Andy's review, with images from the conference and Rome: http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/roma.html

 

Lords of the Underworld

No one really knows what the Mayans thought would happen when their long-count calendar comes to the end of its 5,125 year cycle on 21st December of this year.  Even within academia there is a wide difference of opinion, from earlier Mayanists who considered the date to be an indication of the End of an Age, with apocalyptic undertones (1), to more modern commentators who are generally dismissive of it meaning anything beyond ritualistic significance.  The modern Maya themselves seem unworried, and no doubt welcome the global interest in their culture that this year will bring. 

The date signifies the calendar round of the 13th Baktun (13.0.0.0.0 in Mayan's complex long-count system). Seemingly, only one inscription from ancient Mayan culture concerning this date, now imminent, survived the purges of the Conquistadors.  This partially defaced inscription is found on Monument 6 at Tortuguero, Mexico.  Here are two translations of the same inscription:

"It will be completed the 13th b'ak'tun. It is 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in and it will happen a 'seeing'[?].  It is the display of B'olon-Yokte‘ in a great [investiture].” (2)                  

“At the next creation, the Bolon Yokte Ku, or Nine Support Gods, will [return].” (3)

 

So, it's clear that the ‘Bolon Yokte K’uh’ are scheduled to make an appearance on 21st December 2012.  They are the Nine Lords of the Underworld and - depending on who you think is closer to the truth with their interpretation - they will return/descend/be invested as a deity in a Mayan ceremony on the date of the completion of the 13th Baktun. Is this good or bad, or just myth?  The Nine Gods of the Underworld (sometimes considered to be a single deity) will apparently conquer the Thirteen Gods of Heaven. The victorious Nine will then decide on the fate of the next (Fifth) Age. 

Perhaps many years ago one might have reasonably argued that the Bolon Yokte K’uh referred to a returning planet or planetary system, like the Dark Star Nibiru achieving perihelion in its long elliptical orbit around the Sun.  Then this conflict might have referred to some kind of celestial battle within the solar system.  But, as we can see in my next article below, that has not been possible for some years now:  Planet X simply has not made an appearance. 

Others wonder whether the Bolon Yokte K’uh are linked with another 'Nine'.  Channellers and psychics claim contact with powerful extraterrestrial entities known as "The Nine" - notably the maverick researcher Dr Andrija Puharich and his co-workers (4).  He equated 'The Nine' with the Nine Principles in ancient Egyptian belief, known as the Ennead.  The ancient Egyptians referred to them as "Nine that are One" (5), eerily reminiscent of the Mayan 'Bolon Yokte K’uh' whose plurality/singularity is also ambiguous.

Now compare the rather scant description of the Mayan Nine Gods of the Underworld with the Sumerian deities, the Anunnaki:  “those who from heaven came to earth”.  In Middle Babylonian times the term Anunnakku (Anuna) also referred to the Gods of the Underworld.  Are we talking about the same extraterrestrial entities, the descriptions of which vary over three ancient cultures? According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Anunnaki were flesh-and-blood gods who colonised the Earth in the ancient past (6).  They come from the planet Nibiru, which is synonymous for many with Planet X, and Sitchin argued that they had a significant impact on the emerging cultures of South and Meso-America (7). 

Just because their planet (in whatever guise it takes) has not turned up as some predicted, it does not mean to say that the Anunnaki themselves might not drop by - thus fulfilling their promise to the ancient Maya? 

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, 17th January 2012

References:

1)  Michael D. Coe  "The Maya. Ancient peoples and places series" 52 London: Thames and Hudson 1966

2)  Inscription translation by Sven Gronemeyer and Barbara MacLeod, "What Could Happen in 2012: A Re-Analysis of the 13-Bak'tun Prophecy on Tortuguero Monument 6", University of Copenhagen: European Association of Mayanists, 34: 1–68, 2010

3)  Philip Coppens "The Ancient Alien Question" p255, New Page Books 2012

4)  Andrija Puharich, "The Sacred Mushroom: Key to the Door of Eternity" Gollancz 1959

5)  Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince "The Stargate Conspiracy", p182,  Warner 1999

6)  Zecharia Sitchin "The Twelfth Planet" Avon 1976

7)  Zecharia Sitchin "The Lost Realms" Avon 1990

 

Planet X Return in 2012 - Not

Now it's 2012, I'd like to make a general point about the Return of Planet X.  Some years ago I criticised Marshall Masters, Jacco van der Worp and Janice Manning in my book review of their "Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide".  They argued that a Nibiru/Planet X/Dark Star object would be 'clearly visible at night as a bright, reddish object' to observers in the southern hemisphere from mid-2009, and would appear more generally as a second sun in 2012.  More specifically, they prophesized that Planet X would be just 6.4AU away by 15th May 2011, and thus by now should be at about the same distance as Jupiter, if not closer.  I disagreed and spelt out my reasons why Planet X was nowhere close to returning.  My 2006 book review (http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/planetxforecast.htm) resulted in an angry reaction from Marshall Masters himself, who has had nothing to do with me since (regular readers of my book reviews know I'm not one to pull punches). 

Whether their book was based upon a solid set of scientific assumptions or not, it can now be seen to be seriously flawed.  Videos and other supporting evidence posted on the Internet over the last few years has claimed that images of sundogs and lens flares around the Sun prove that Planet X is upon us.  It does not.  They simply prove that some images taken of the Sun have lens flares and sundogs.   For their book to have been correct, we are now at the stage when a second sun should be clearly visible.  It is not.  There's no getting around this now.  A brown dwarf object closer than Jupiter would be a highly visible night-time object - certainly the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon.  So where is it?

Now is the time for an earnest debate on this subject.  There are many, many people who, influenced by the Planet X Forecast and other similar missives, still believe that the end of the Mayan Calendar augurs the catastrophic return of Nibiru.  They are anxious, even fearful of this outcome.   I want to put their minds at rest.  I don't know what the end of 2012 will bring, but I know what is not going to happen - we will not see catastrophe at the hand of a brown dwarf closing in on perihelion.  Those still arguing that this might happen risk creating unnecessary panic and anxiety in a public already rocked by economic turmoil.  They should recognise their error.   The 2012 scenario has, predictably, caused the Planet X debate severe damage.  NASA has been bombarded with questions from fearful members of the public, creating a feeding frenzy of scepticism that has damaged more considered arguments for the existence of another distant planet in our solar system.  The public now perceive the claim for a Planet X body as being the hallmark of cranks.  

I was right to argue against the 2012 scenario back in 2006, and I stand by the criticism I levelled at the Planet X Forecast book back then. That's my opinion as a researcher, but I also recognise that others have differing opinions.  If they want to share them with me then I'm happy to hear them and include their points here on my website.  I want the public to be able to access an honest, open debate on this subject as minds increasingly turn to this year's winter solstice.

Andy Lloyd, 6th January 2012

Lee Tierney writes (8/1/12):

"I have just enjoyed your latest post and I agree, the biggest immediate threat to people are the Global Government(s).   However, I have probably trawled every image and video on the web searching for 'THE' dwarf star and I keep going back to the Google Sky image below that was removed (2007 ?) and replaced with a dark rectangle.   If this was a hoax why would Google censor the area in question or do they like playing mind games....?"   Lee

Andy replied (8/1/12):

"Thanks for sending these images through.  I'm not sure why Google left a gap in the full sky survey - it may be an artifact of overlapping plates that missed a bit, or it may be to cut out an overly bright object.  Or it may be to hide something they don't want anyone to see.  But I'm also not clear on the provenance of the image of Nibiru/Planet X and its moons, which are just as likely to have been created by someone in photoshop/paintshop.  They don't look authentic to me, and fakery here is a likely possibility.  Of course, just because someone might have opportunistically faked these images doesn't mean that there isn't something else genuine to see that's been censored.  But...if that's the case, it's a very, very long way out, and it is certainly the case that for Marshall Masters et al to be right we should all be able to see this object clearly in the night sky now.  That is self-evidently not the case."  Andy

For more details see:

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/googleearth.html

 

 

Television Documentaries

In April, I was interviewed for series 2 of the Canadian TV History Channel documentary show 'Weird Or What?", presented by actor William Shatner. The subject was the Peruvian Ica Stones and their possible connection to Atlantis, which was something of a diversion from my normal material.  The filming location was in the Senate House at University College, London, which provided a superb backdrop.  I also took the time to visit the Ancient Mesopotamian exhibits at the British Museum over the road, to collect images of Winged Disks etc.

 

Episode 10 Description:  "Three ancient artifacts that could turn the history of the world upside down: In a Mexican cave, a young girl finds a bizarrely-shaped thousand-year-old skull that may prove aliens once walked the planet; featuring detailed images of dinosaurs, a Peruvian doctor discovers ancient stone carvings that could rewrite the story of evolution; and, excavated from one of Cairo’s oldest pyramids, a 2000-year-old wooden model may be proof that ancient Egyptians invented modern flight."

 

Moon Anomaly may be due to Dark Star

An Italian astrophysicist has offered up the existence of a massive Planet X body as a solution to an orbital anomaly to do with the Moon.  It seems counter-intuitive that such a distant object could really cause such an effect, but the maths shows that it seems to be the least unlikely possibility!  Other bodies in the solar system cannot explain the increasing eccentricity of the lunar orbit measured by Lunar Laser Ranging over the last 38 years (1).  The data is compelling, and Lorenzo Iorio has tried a number of different solutions to help explain the anomaly. None of them works, except one:  Planet X.  But for this to be the solution, the undiscovered planet would need to be both massive and relatively nearby, by cosmic standards at least:

"In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity. Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a terrestrial-sized body should be located at just 30AU [Astronomical Units], while an object with the mass of Jupiter should be at 200AU." (2)

An astronomical unit is the distance between the Earth and the Sun.  Nemesis/Tyche are versions of a proposed sub-brown dwarf object circling the Sun, which I call a Dark Star (3).  These are several times the mass of Jupiter.  Therefore, such an object could be the cause of the lunar orbit anomaly whilst lying at a distance substantially greater than 200AU.  Furthermore, this assumes a roughly circular orbit for the proposed Dark Star body.  If such an object moved in a more eccentric orbit, then a greater range of values could well apply, placing the Dark Star body as a distance where it might have more realistically evaded detection. 

Although another explanation for the observed increasing eccentricity of the lunar orbit may yet be found, this might well be a new consideration to add to the growing list of indirect evidence for the existence of a binary Dark Star object.

This is not the first paper written by Lorenzo Iorio about the possibility of a massive Planet X body lying closer than the inner Oort Cloud.  Other work, written up in January 2011, looks at another anomaly: the retrograde perihelion precession of Saturn (recently determined from an analysis of radio-technical data from Cassini).  He again proposes that the effect might be caused by a massive Planet X body, and provides a range of distance values which would correspond to different planetary masses:

"We find for rock-ice planets of the size of Mars and the Earth that they would be at about 80-150 AU, respectively, while a Jupiter-sized gaseous giant would be at approximately 1000AU.  A typical brown dwarf would be located at about 4000AU."   (4)

Iorio thinks that it would be wise to look anew at all the solar system planetary data, but this time explicitly include the existence of a massive Planet X body as a parameter when building the dynamical models of the system.  Perhaps such an approach might also go some way towards explaining these two further anomalies currently confounding astrophysicists:

"There are at least four unexplained anomalies connected with astrometric data. Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it often experiences a change in total orbital energy per unit mass. Next, a secular change in the astronomical unit AU is definitely a concern." (1)

This was in a paper presented by John Anderson to the American Astronomical Society in 2009.  John Anderson has had a long interest in the hunt for Planet X, going back to the time he worked for JPL.  He was at the forefront of the Pioneer anomaly investigation, and given his historical interest in the wider question of a Planet X body it is not unreasonable to suppose that he made a connection. I've not heard before about some of the other anomalies he considers in this paper, which appear to be well understood problems to do with the movement of bodies in the solar system.  Let's look at the two he mentions as being most significant:  

"Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it often experiences a change in total orbital energy per unit mass." (1) In other words, something is causing it to shift from its orbital trajectory, defying the way Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics describe its trajectory.  This could be a similar problem as that affecting the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit.  The effect is very small, but consistent for many objects passing near the Earth. This implies that an extra mass in the solar system is adding its influence to the other planets/dwarf planets/asteroids that are already taken into account.  Or that physics is wrong.  

"Next, a secular change in the astronomical unit AU is definitely a concern." (1)  Again, this needs a bit of translating.  I'd take this to mean that the actual distance between the Earth and the Sun is varying, beyond the variation one would expect from its known eccentricity.  After all, 1AU is defined as the distance between the Earth and the Sun, so if's it's changing then so is the orbital property of the Earth around the Sun.  Okay, so that's in keeping with what's happening with the Moon's orbit.  Everything is being stretched out a bit by an external influence, and the better we can measure the movement of solar system bodies, the clearer the tiny effect appears.  

It's either an extra mass in the solar system, or another effect astronomers haven't thought about. Perhaps this MOND effect, which seems to be some kind of gravitational lensing from the direction of the centre of the galaxy.  Or perhaps that 'fluff' beyond the heliopause that NASA dreamed up to explain the non-uniformity of that solar system boundary.  The easiest solution should be extra mass, surely?  Like a Vulcan object (1/2Mj), a Dark Star (3-10Mj) or perhaps a more distant brown dwarf star like Nemesis (17Mj+).
 

Written by Andy Lloyd, 27-28th October 2011

References:

1)  Anderson JD, Nieto MM. Astrometric Solar-System Anomalies. Proceedings of American Astronomical Society, IAU Symposium #261. "Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis" 27 April - 1 May 2009 Virginia Beach, VA, USA. http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2469

2)  L. Iorio "On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon" Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.  25 April 2011, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v6.pdf   with thanks to Lloyd Pye

3)  Andy Lloyd "The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" Timeless Voayger Press 2005

4)  L. Iorio "The perihelion precession of Saturn, planet X/Nemesis and MOND" 12th January 2011, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.4514v6.pdf

 

 

Three Possible Candidate Objects Emerge from the WISE Data

The WISE infra-red survey may have collected a large set of data, but it's still too early to say whether it has found a massive planet out among the comets.  A preliminary catalogue of objects in the sky emitting infra-red radiation has been collated, and it is very extensive.  Any particular object could be an exciting planetary object relatively close to us, or perhaps just another celestial object out in the galaxy somewhere. 

Determining which of these two possibilities is correct is not as straightforward as one might think.  Serious astrophysicists have toyed with the idea of a Jupiter+ object out in the Oort Cloud, however controversial that may seem.  One of those academic astrophysicists is Professor John Matese, and he has christened his putative planet 'Tyche'. At a recent astrophysics conference held in Nantes, France, he presented on a set of four possible candidates that he has pinpointed in WISE's preliminary data (1).  One of them he quickly ruled out, but that leaves us with three possible objects circling the Sun at around 20,000AU (his preferred distance). 

Apparently, Professor Matese judged it likely that the three objects he highlighted were probably extra-galactic objects located well beyond the solar system.  In other words, he suggested that they're probably not planets at all, but exceedingly remote objects whose apparent heat signature is similar to a nearby Y-dwarf.  That caution notwithstanding, his published slideshow notes leave the origins of these three objects very much open to question: 

"We have developed search criteria for the WISE database that yields a manageable number of ultracold (<200K) planet candidates for follow-up study. The criteria have been used in the preliminary catalog and we find four candidate sources.  Three of them may be bound 1 MJ planets in the Oort cloud, but are possibly extra-galactic objects. VizieR does not list any associations. To determine the nature of the sources requires further observations, including trigonometric parallax determinations." (1)

As the WISE data is pored over, and candidate objects analysed using parallax methods to indicate movement in the sky over time, it is comforting to know that some in the academic sphere wish to leave no stone unturned in their hunt for a new Jupiter-sized planet in the outer solar system.

 

Andy Lloyd, 11th October 2011

References:

(1)  John Matese & Daniel Whitmire "Searching the WISE Preliminary Catalog for Massive Planets in the Solar System" EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2011, Nantes, France, 2-7th October 2011,  http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638/Nantes.pdf 

 

Comet from the Kuiper Belt Has Earth-like Water

Comets in the solar system have variable origins.  Over recent years scientists have looked at the water composition of comets in order to answer the question of where the Earth's water originated from.  This is a trickier question than you might think.  If the Earth formed in its current location (and note I say 'if') then the intense bombardment of the solar wind from the early hot Sun should have driven off all the volatiles from the Earth's primordial surface, including water.  The fact that the Earth has abundant water, rather than being arid like Venus and to a lesser extent Mars, is a mystery.

The generally accepted answer to this mystery is the 'later veneer theory', whereby water was deposited onto a dry Earth as a result of the impacts of many, many comets and asteroids over a vast period of time.  But this theory has been questioned recently because the isotopic composition of water in the half dozen comets so far analysed has been different to that of Earth water.  If they are a representative sample of smaller bodies in the solar system, then the water must have come from somewhere else:  Firstly, there aren't enough comets in the solar system to have created the Earth's oceans, and secondly, the isotopic composition seems to be wrong anyway.

The latest comet to be analysed in this way has opened a door of hope on the Late Veneer Theory:

"New measurements from the Herschel Space Observatory show that comet Hartley 2, which comes from the distant Kuiper Belt, contains water with the same chemical signature as Earth's oceans. This remote region of the solar system, some 30 to 50 times as far away as the distance between Earth and the sun, is home to icy, rocky bodies including Pluto, other dwarf planets and innumerable comets."  (1)

The problem is where comet Hartley 2 originally came from (2).  The Kuiper Belt is effectively a second asteroid belt beyond the planet Neptune, much larger than its famous cousin which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.  It is a part of the solar system astronomers are only just starting to understand, and regular readers of this site will recognise that it has thrown up a large number of anomalies and new questions. 

Many of these new findings are suggestive, in my opinion, of a different scenario for the early solar system than is presently held by the mainstream scientific community. The new puzzle is why bodies originating close to the Earth have a different isotopic composition to the water found on our planet, whereas one originating in the distant Kuiper Belt has exactly the same(3).  Comet Hartley 2 seems misplaced, to say the least:

"However, the new results also raise new questions. Until now, scientists assumed that the distance of a body’s origin from the Sun correlated to the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in its water. The farther away this origin lies from the Sun, the larger this ratio should be. With a “birth place” within the Kuiper belt and thus well beyond the orbit of Neptune, Hartley 2, however, seems to violate this rule. “Either the comet originated in greater proximity to the Sun than we thought”, says Hartogh, “or the current assumptions on the distribution of deuterium have to be reconsidered.” And maybe Hartley 2 is a so-called Trojan that originated close to Jupiter and could never overcome its gravitational pull." (4)

Competing theories like mine, originating in Zecharia Sitchin's controversial explanation for the cosmic catastrophes of the early solar system, may offer answers to this mystery, which don't require rewriting the laws of physics (5).  But the dataset here remains small, and we will only be able to piece the puzzle together properly when a larger sample of comets and asteroids has been properly studied.

One other solution is that the bombardment of the inner solar system that took place 3.9 billion years ago (the 'Late Heavy Bombardment') consisted of a swarm of giant comets from the Kuiper Belt displaced by the migration of Jupiter and Saturn.  Such a concept is supported by the recent discovery of the debris of a giant comet in a neighbouring star system whose chemical signature matches meteorite fragments found here on Earth.  A pattern may be occurring here:

"About 4 billion years ago, some 600 million years after our solar system formed, scientists think the Kuiper Belt was disturbed by a migration of the gas-giant planets Jupiter and Saturn. This jarring shift in the solar system's gravitational balance scattered the icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt, flinging the vast majority into interstellar space and producing cold dust in the belt. Some Kuiper Belt objects, however, were set on paths that crossed the orbits of the inner planets.

"The resulting bombardment of comets lasted until 3.8 billion years ago. After comets impacted the side of the moon that faces Earth, magma seeped out of the lunar crust, eventually cooling into dark "seas," or maria.

"Comets also struck Earth or incinerated in the atmosphere, and are thought to have deposited water and carbon on our planet. This period of impacts might have helped life form by delivering its crucial ingredients." (6)

But the problem remains that the population of the Kuiper Belt is insufficient to have supplied enough water to have filled the Earth's oceans.  What could have swept through the Kuiper Belt to have displaced all those missing KBO asteroids?  Surely not distant Jupiter and Saturn?  This is where the Dark Star concept could really provide the answer.


Written by Andy Lloyd, 7th October 2011 and updated 20th Oct 2011

 

References:

1) JPL Press Release, "Space Observatory Provides Clues to Creation of Earth's Oceans" 5th October 2011, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-312&cid=release_2011-312 with thanks to David, see also  http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/science-environment-15181123

2) Technical Data about Comet Hartley 2: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=103P;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#discovery

3) Thomas Moore, Scientists Find Ocean-Like Water On Comet, October 05, 2011 http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16083250 with thanks to Lee

4) Astrobiology Magazine "Proof that Comets Brought Oceans to Earth"  http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4261/proof-that-comets-brought-oceans-to-earth with thanks to Lee

5) For a more in-depth discussion of this topic, visit: http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/water2.html

6) JPL Press Release  "NASA's Spitzer Detects Comet Storm in Nearby Solar System" 19th October 2011   http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-322&cid=release_2011-322&msource=11322&tr=y&auid=9719493 with thanks to David

 

NASA 's  WISE Team Talk Brown Dwarfs

 

 

In the above Youtube video, NASA scientist Amy Mainzer discusses the WISE mission, and how one of the potential discoveries might be a brown dwarf closer to us than the nearest star (1).  Bear in mind that an actual full-on brown dwarf could be as massive as 80 Jupiter masses.  The object I describe on this website is a sub-brown dwarf, below 17 Jupiter masses (and possibly as low as 3 or 4 Mj).  Potentially, such an object might lurk much closer to us than this video implies.  But the video nevertheless spells out how such a concept is realistic. Sceptics take note...

An announcement has now been made that about 100 new brown dwarf objects have been confirmed by WISE so far.  They include 6 of the coldest variety of sub-brown dwarf, known as 'Y-Dwarfs', all of which have been found within 40 light years of the Sun.

""Finding brown dwarfs near our sun is like discovering there's a hidden house on your block that you didn't know about," says Michael Cushing, a WISE team member at JPL. "It's thrilling to me to know we've got neighbours out there yet to be discovered. With WISE, we may even find a brown dwarf closer to us than our closest known star."" (2,3)

In neighbouring star systems, then the Dark Star theory has become a reality. It remains to be seen whether the same holds true for a similar companion object orbiting around the Sun.

In this next video clip on YouTube, NASA hold a press conference to outline the progress made so far by WISE, in its search for new objects in the solar system.  The team is asked about a possible brown dwarf, and whether such an object might be in-bound. 

 

 

NeoWISE spokesperson Amy Mainzer denies that a Planet X body could be in-bound, but does not rule out the possibility that a large planetary body, like a Y-Dwarf, might lurk undiscovered in the solar system (4).  The data from WISE's double sky surveys is still being pored over, and there remains a possibility that a Dark Star might be found in a circular orbit way out in the outer solar system (5). 

That same concept was recently aired on CNN when discussing a report in the British newspaper The Independent about Nemesis/Tyche (6):

 

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, September 2011

References:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWT66OtVKuk&feature=youtu.be

2) "Discovered: Stars as Cool as the Human Body", August 24, 2011,  http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/23aug_coldeststars/ with thanks to Vento

3)  Lisa Grossman, Coolest brown dwarf discovered,  23 August 2011  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/08/coolest-brown-dwarf-discovered.html with thanks to David

4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NDbu5Y8c4 and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gBIE2FqPlY  with thanks to Mattia

5) http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-060

6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6EUFOnyinc&feature=youtu.be with thanks to David

 

 

Scientist Claims Ancient Solar System must have had FIVE Gas Giants

Sceptics of the Dark Star Theory often remark that there is 'no evidence' for a large Planet X body.  Where it is true that such a body has not been discovered directly, it is not correct to say that there is no evidence for the existence of such a body far, far beyond Neptune.  In fact, there is an abundance of indirect evidence of something very big out there - and I'm not talking about dodgy videos on YouTube knocked up by Doomsday enthusiasts.  I mean fact-based evidence discovered by professional astronomers and astrophysicists. 

Let me give you a list off the top of my head:  non-random long period comet data, the Kuiper Cliff/Gap, highly anomalous orbital properties of certain Kuiper Belt Objects, on-going anomalous trajectories of the Pioneer spacecraft, a missing chunk of angular momentum in the solar system, missing Kuiper Belt Object populations, and an irregularly-shaped heliosheath. 

Each of these problems have individually challenged scientists and their standardised understanding of the solar system.  Taken together, they provide a pattern indicating that our understanding of the outer solar system is flawed.  Simply put, the outer solar system is not as it should be.  And this is why I have advocated the existence out there of a 'Dark Star', as described in my book of the same name (1).

Astronomers often try to model the early solar system, using complex computer programs (run on super computers) to show the evolution of the system to attain what we see today.  In order to achieve the right outcome, they change the starting conditions - adding in planets, taking out planets, migrating planets, and so on.  Recent work of this type by David Nesvorny, of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, has produced a stunning conclusion - one that could easily be added to the list of anomalies I have set out above. 

"We found that the dynamical simulations starting with a resonant system of four giant planets have a low success rate in matching the present orbits of giant planets, and various other constraints (e.g., survival of the terrestrial planets). The dynamical evolution is typically too violent..." (2)

In other words, the current gas giant group of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune was almost certainly not the initial high-end composition of the early solar system.  In playing around with the starting components of the solar system, he has concluded that there must have once been an extra gas giant planet (3):

"In an effort to determine just how the solar system was formed, Nesvorny performed a series of some 6,000 computer simulations. When using just the four giant planets, every simulation found that they were too large and ended up destroying each other.

"In the simulations where they did manage to make it in one piece, the rocky planets such as Mars and Venus, were instead destroyed. According to his results, the current solar system structure would have a very low probability of occurring if it started with only four rocky planets and four gas planets.  After running these simulations, Nesvorny decided to add a fifth large planet into the mix. With the addition of this large planet, results found that the odds of our current solar system increased significantly." (4)

He argues that, given a lack of direct evidence for such a body, it must have been expelled from the solar system at some point.   His thinking reflects that of other prominent professional astronomers who have advocated the existence of a massive extra planet in the early solar system, details of whom can also be found in my book.  As has happened with a number of findings in recent years, professional astronomers are having to tussle with the need for another massive planet in the solar system, and the apparent lack of evidence of its existence.

It seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence for an extra massive gas giant in the early solar system, possibly as big as a sub brown dwarf.  The question for me is whether such a body was actually ejected from the solar system, or whether, more controversially, it is still out there, waiting to be discovered.  Its footprints are everywhere in the outer solar system.  Do they lead out of the system completely, or to a lair hidden among the background stars?

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, 22nd Sept. 2011
 

References:

(1) Andy Lloyd "Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" Timeless Voyager Press 2005

(2) David Nesvorny "Young Solar System's Fifth Giant Planet?" Submitted 13th Sept. 2011, http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2949

(3) Emily Allen "It's a gas, gas, gas, gas, gas: Scientists think solar system may have had a FIFTH gas planet" 21/9/11

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039928/Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune--did-solar-fifth-gas-planet.html with thanks to Lee and Mart

(4) Deborah Braconnier  "Computer simulation shows Solar System once had an extra planet" 22nd Sept. 2011, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-simulation-solar-extra-planet.html with thanks to Theo

(5)  A computer simulation of the planetary ejection can be seen here: "Giant planet ejected from the solar system" 10th November 2011 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-giant-planet-ejected-solar.html  thanks to Jim

 

Radio Interview with Andy Lloyd on YouTube

On Wednesday 7th September, I did an interview with Valentine St Aubyn about Planet X, on Peterborough FM.  In our 40 minute interview we covered a lot of ground: the history of Planet X, Nibiru, Nemesis, Comet Elenin, and the potential threat of 2012.  The show has been formated onto YouTube by Valentine, in 4 parts. The Planet X part of the show starts after about 7 minutes through Part 1:   http://youtu.be/czvdudEH7yE

Then the actual interview begins in Part 2 (featured below) followed by parts 3 and 4 for a total length of about 45 minutes:

Part 2:  http://youtu.be/HEnlG7-Kt6E

Part 3: http://youtu.be/zw2H8HctgnQ

Part 4:  http://youtu.be/7LY4p6QDN0Q

Many thanks to Valentine St Aubyn for putting together this excellent set of YouTube videos, and for helping to get the word out about Planet X/the Dark Star.

Red Ice Interview

I recorded an interview with Red Ice Creations for broadcast this week, on the subject of Comet Elenin and the Dark Star: 

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/07/RIR-110725.php

 

Official: MoD never actually studied UFOs

The British Ministry of Defence have released more files from their UFO archive, on a day full of news about riots in the UK and stock market crashes around the globe.  Is the Ministry trying to bury bad news?  Sure looks like it, given some of the contents of those files:

"National Archives consultant Dr David Clarke said it was about time the data was released.  "One of the most interesting documents in the files is a piece from an intelligence officer, who basically says that despite thousands of reports that they've received since the Second World War, they've never done any study or spent any money or time on the subject, and they say that people just won't believe that when they find out."

"The internal memo from a DI55 [defence intelligence] wing commander dated 5 July 1995 says the media's portrayal of DI55 as a "defender of the Earth against the alien menace" is "light years from the truth."  The file shows the officer feared that if intelligence's interest in UFOs was to be revealed it could cause "disbelief and embarrassment since few people will believe the truth that lack of funds and higher priorities have prevented any study of the thousands of reports received.""

All those people who took the time to contact the MoD with their sightings - all those official reports from military and police observers.  Ignored.  Brings a new meaning to 'No Defence Interest', doesn't it?

 

Reference:  "Ministry of Defence files on UFO sightings released" 11th August 2011  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14486678

 

Sitchin Attacked Again


There's a lot of nonsense written about Nibiru on the Internet, and that nonsense provides easy material for sceptics to point at when dismissing the entire subject. A recent error-strewn Space.com article describes the doomsday hype about Comet Elenin, and fears of a catastrophic return of Nibiru in 2012, in a dismissive, irritated manner (1). Which, of course, is entirely up to them. Clearly, they have focussed on the most extreme end of Internet opinion about Sitchin's work when critiquing him, unaware that he never wrote about a return of Nibiru in 2012 in his own books (I mean, you wouldn't have actually expected them to have read his work first before trashing it, would you?)

For the record, I agree with Space.com that the doomsday hype, especially on YouTube videos, is having a detrimental effect on many impressionable young people. But there are plenty of depressing things going on in the world today, and no one's suggesting we brush all those things under the carpet as well, surely?  Many believers of the doomsday cult will be asking searching questions of the purveyors of such fears come 2013, so there will be a day of reckoning for them in the end, I'm sure.  

Please, Space.com, get your facts straight when embarking on one of your hatchet jobs.  Sitchin was a remarkable, if controversial, thinker, and his work deserves a fair hearing.  That thought was shared by a PhD archaeologist I recently heard from.  He wrote to Space.com to complain about their lack of balance in the article. No reply, no changes.  Instead, on 24th July the article promulgated out to Fox News (2) to reach a wider, and even less discerning audience.
 

Andy Lloyd 9th & 27th July 2011
 

References:

(1) Natalie Wolchover, , 07 July 2011, http://www.space.com/12194-comet-elenin-planet-nibiru-doomsday-2012.html with thanks to Lee

(2)  "Believers In Mysterious Planet Nibiru Await Earth's End" 24th July 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/24/believers-in-mysterious-planet-nibiru-comet-elenin-await-earths-end/?test=faces  with thanks to Lee

 

¿La Estrella Oscura en México?

"Te envío esta fotografías tomadas en el mes de Mayo 2011, en Monterrey México.  En Internet circulan fotografías de Indonesia, China y Australia, y creo que son las Primeras que se captan en México."

 ¿La Estrella Oscura en México? escrito por Dr. R. Rodríguez

 

Italian Crop Circle

A seven-ray star enveloped within a coded crop circle was found in Italy on 20th June 2011. The code spells out the name of the Sumerian god Enki/Ea.  Dark Star symbolism?  You decide:  A Sitchinite Crop Circle in Italy  thanks to David

 

Visions of the Dark Star

On occasion, I receive correspondence setting out vivid dreams or visions that may have a connection with my Dark Star research.  The following is one such experience, which actually takes the form of a number of visions and dreams over a long period of time, of a celestial object which appears to relate to an incoming sub-brown dwarf, or blazing Planet X/Nibiru body.  Here, in his own words, is Leigh's story:

A Vision of the Dark Star

  Una Visión de la Estrella Oscura

 

Elenin Video Conference

This summer, I participated in this video conference hosted by Project Camelot.  I had to miss about one hour due to my summer art exhibition, but the conference overran to complete a total time of almost 5 hours, so as it turned out I was present for most of the time.   The conference centred upon Richard Hoagland's theories about the artificial nature of the Elenin object.  Various esoteric and hyper-dimensional considerations were addressed by the various speakers, who each brought specialist knowledge to the round table debate.  I focussed upon the complexities of the fascination with Comet Elenin on the Internet, and the concern about a returning dwarf star that is prevalent currently.  These topics, which covered Sitchinite and Planet X themes, were debated rigorously.  The entire event was both informative and constructive, and led to a series of testable predictions about what kind of events might emerge over the next six months and beyond.  The Q&A session led to some diverse and fascinating discourse.

Andy Lloyd, 25th June 2011

Review of the conference: Dr Michael Salla, Exopolitics, 3/7/11, "Is Comet Elenin an incoming spacecraft heralding a New Age?"  

Comet Elenin

2012 is nearly upon us, and there is great concern that an in-coming Planet X body might bring catastrophe to our fragile world.  The environmental calamities of recent times do not augur well.  There has been a spate of earthquakes around the globe; Chile, Japan, New Zealand. 

Even Spain has not escaped our planet's seismic ripples, on the very same day that an earthquake was predicted for Rome almost 100 years ago (1). 

Predicting earthquakes is practically impossible, we are told, unless, of course, you're a small animal sensitive to mysterious fluctuations before the quake strikes. 

Comet Elenin is currently moving through the solar system (2) .  Many have expressed concerns about this body, which appears to have disappointed astronomers with its relatively pathetic celestial showing (3).  But it's appearance preludes the 2012 period we are moving into, so it's reasonable to ask whether this small comet might be the first of many, or even the front rider for a much more substantive body.  YouTube is bubbling over with rumours. 

Amid the hype, there is an intriguing bit of science.   Dr Mensur Omerbashich of Sarajevo, who received a PhD from the University of New Brunswick in 2004, has presented a paper outlining his assertion that there is a tangible link between cosmic alignments and seismic activity on Earth, based upon his theory of hyperresonance (4).  He presents evidence that some earthquakes are coincident with planetary alignments, or with Full Moons.  He argues that the Comet Elenin is a case in point - it has been noted that it was on the exact opposite side of the Sun to us during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.  From this data he extrapolates:

"The Elenin will continue intensifying the Earth's very strong seismicity until August-October, 2011. Approximate forecast of earthquakes based on my discoveries is feasible." (4)

And there's the thing.  Could Omerbashich's theory predict earthquakes from planetary, cometary and lunar alignments?  Does the Earth respond to such cosmic goings on, performing some kind of seismic astrology?  Did Elenin really cause the Japanese quake?  To give credence to his theory, Omerbashich needs to pick up the trail of a future in-coming comet and plot its course until an alignment is achieved with the Earth and Sun, and then predict trouble here on Earth ahead of time.  If he's proven right, then we should all sit up and take notice.  And if you listen to the many concerned voices on the internet about 2012, then such a predictive tool cannot come soon enough.

Which brings me to the issue of whether Comet Elenin is actually the returning Dark Star, as many are thinking at the moment.  To be totally honest, people are excited about the hype over the alleged arrival of Planet X, and jumping to conclusions about a simple comet that, itself, is unspectacular.  Let me lay out what a multi-Jupiter mass brown dwarf would look like right now if it was as close as is being speculated by many (i.e. that it's actually comet Elenin). 

This Dark Star would appear in the night sky as a red/magenta planet about the same size as Jupiter.  In other words, it would be one of the brightest objects in the night sky, very probably brighter than Venus.  In addition, I believe that it would have a visible aura, or tail, that would be rather spectacular. That fiery aura would extend out from the planet itself by some considerable degree, possibly extending out to the very edge of the Dark Star's very considerable magnetosphere ( which would be about 4 x the moon's diameter across, or more). 
 
The combination of the bright planet, its contingent of large moons, and in particular its fiery aura would produce the 'winged' disk' effect in the sky, like a mighty red celestial dragon. 
 
Now I don't know about you, but when I pop outside at night to look in the direction of Elenin, I'm not seeing this at all.  Frankly, that's because Elenin is a comet, and not a very good one at that.  It is clearly not an incoming Dark Star/Planet X/Nibiru object.
  Curiously, Comet Elenin attained opposition twice during its perihelion passage.  The first one, on 14th April, was coincident with the Japanese earthquake on 11th April.  The second opposition is on 22nd November 2011 (2).  If Dr Omerbashich's theory is correct, then one would be forgiven for predicting a major earthquake around that date somewhere on Earth.  Of course, his theory may be flawed, and Comet Elenin may break up as it head around the Sun, so the threat must be seen to be low.
 

Andy Lloyd, 15th-24th June 2011

References:

(1)  "All roads lead OUT of Rome: Streets of Italian capital empty after 1915 prediction of ‘big one’ earthquake" 11th May 2011 
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385815/Rome-quake-rumours-Streets-1915-big-earthquake-prediction.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

(2)  C/2010 X1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1

(3)  JPL Press Release, 4th May 2011  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-135&cid=release_2011-135 with thanks to David

(4)  Mensur Omerbashich  "Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity" Submitted on 11 Apr 2011  http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036 with thanks to Kerry Cassidy
 

Migrating Jupiter explains Fun-size Mars?


The word planet is derived from the Greek word meaning 'wanderer', as they were the stars which weren't fixed in the firmament like the others.  Perhaps the term is imbued with more meaning than we usually credit it for.  Astronomers have known for some time that the gas giants were capable of wandering, or migrating, during the lifetime of the solar system.  Those considerations are strengthened by the discoveries of the strange extra-solar planetary systems, where Jupiter-sized planets exhibit very strange, and often seemingly unstable, orbits.  It indicates a potential volatility that knocks received notions of solar system stability.  As such, nowadays astronomers feel more comfortable with playing around with planetary orbits, when they do their computer simulations of the solar system's evolution.

A team from the Southwest Research Institute had simulated what would happen if they allowed Jupiter to migrate way into the inner solar system, and their results are startling (1).  They don't actually have a mechanism available to them to explain Jupiter's assumed wild deviation, but the results explain aspects of the asteroid belt's distribution and the small size of the planet Mars.  Simply put, Jupiter swept a collection of debris along with it as it moved in, and then moved out, of earth's zone.  That debris added to the mix we can see today.

Dr. Kevin Walsh of the Southwest Research Institute explained the findings of his team's work thus:

This scenario is not the only possible game in town.  It doesn't need to actually be Jupiter to be a Jupiter-sized planet in the solar system causing these effects early in the life of the solar system.  Hell no.  There's another candidate which would fit the bill equally well, bringing with it a completely different assortment of asteroid belt-building debris.  Of course, I am talking about the Dark Star.  And these simulations would similarly work for this outer solar system wanderer that had made its move on the planetary zone.

 

Andy Lloyd, 6th June 2011

1) "A wandering Jupiter stunted Mars’s growth and reshaped the asteroid belt" http://io9.com/5808700/a-wandering-jupiter-stunted-marss-growth-and-reshaped-the-asteroid-belt with thanks to Shad

 

The British Museum Evidence

My latest essay looks at artefacts in the British Museum collection, including new photos, and how academic scholars are too ready to jump to conclusions about Zecharia Sitchin's work.  I also revisit the controversy of the mummified remains of Nin Puabi:

British Museum Evidence

 

Free-floating  Planets "Twice as common as Stars"

Japanese astronomers have discovered 10 free-floating Jupiter-sized planets during a sky survey of a portion of the Milky Way (1). 

Confirming the existence of these wandering interstellar planets, which have no parent star, they have been able to extrapolate a remarkable statistic for the number of such planets in our galaxy:

"The discovery indicates there are many more free-floating Jupiter-mass planets that can't be seen. The team estimates there are about twice as many of them as stars. In addition, these worlds are thought to be at least as common as planets that orbit stars. This would add up to hundreds of billions of lone planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone.

"Previous observations spotted a handful of free-floating, planet-like objects within star-forming clusters, with masses three times that of Jupiter. But scientists suspect the gaseous bodies form more like stars than planets. These small, dim orbs, called brown dwarfs, grow from collapsing balls of gas and dust, but lack the mass to ignite their nuclear fuel and shine with starlight. It is thought the smallest brown dwarfs are approximately the size of large planets." (2)

What is clear is that the galaxy must be teeming with planets - some conventionally orbiting stars, but many flung into the dark void between stars.  Apart from this being a remarkable discovery that changes how we think about planets in our galaxy, it must also have far-reaching consequences for our understanding of cosmic catastrophism.  The implication is simple.  Increase the density of populations of brown dwarfs, gas giants and regular planets all swirling about in the void, and you increase the potential for visitations to our solar system over the lifetime of our Sun.  Hence, statistical probabilities of the captured objects, close-flybys and, yes, collisions with the planets in our system all increase.  Back to the drawing board for many astrophysicists, and an enhanced appreciation of the dark objects that fill the sky between the stars for the rest of us.

Andy Lloyd, 18th May 2011

1)  "'Exciting' find: Possible planets without orbits" 18th May 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110518/ap_on_sc/us_sci_wandering_planets_4

2)  NASA press release,  " Free-Floating Planets May be More Common Than Stars" 18th May 2011 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-147&cid=release_2011-147

 

Io and the Dark Star

Jupiter's closest Galilean moon, Io, is a furnace of volcanic activity across its entire surface - making it the most active of all the worlds in the solar system.  This is attributable to its proximity to Jupiter, whose immense gravitational power and magnetic field play havoc with the tiny world's interior.  This is an important consideration for the Dark Star Theory, because it shows how a similar scenario could play out in the much colder outer solar system.  In other words, a Earth-sized moon orbiting a sub-brown dwarf in the outer solar system could be significantly warmed internally by the same mechanism.

Recent work by scientists has shown that Io has a global magma ocean about 30 to 50 kilometres (20 to 30 miles) beneath its crust.  It's a remarkable find in a world so small: before this, magma oceans have been known to exist only on Earth. 

"Krishan Khurana, lead author of the study and former co-investigator on Galileo's magnetometer team at UCLA, says "It turns out Io was continually giving off a 'sounding signal' in Jupiter's rotating magnetic field that matched what would be expected from molten or partially molten rocks deep beneath the surface."" (1)

Over ten years since I first presented my hypothesis, I still get emails from other Sitchinites who argue that a terrestrial world in the outer solar system could be internally warmed, independently of a Dark Star.   In his final book, the late Zecharia Sitchin defended his stance on this issue, believing that a sufficiently robust atmosphere would hold in the heat generated by Nibiru's core (the heat is presumably generated by radioactivity in his scenario) (2).  Regrettably, this seems seems almost impossible (I say 'almost' because one can never say "never" in science.  It just seems hopelessly unlikely).  Instead, the gases of a fledgling Nibiruan atmosphere would simply precipitate out in the intense cold of the outer solar system, to form a thick layer of ice across the planet's surface.  Without an external source of gravitational, magnetic and infra-red energy, Nibiru would be dead in the water.  Only a neighbouring Dark Star offers a tangible solution to this issue:  a habitable surface on a warm terrestrial world orbiting a sub-brown dwarf.

Andy Lloyd, 13th May 2011

 

(1) Galileo Data Reveal Magma Ocean Under Jupiter Moon NASA Press release 12th May 2011  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-141&cid=release_2011-141

with thanks to David

(2) Zecharia Sitchin 'There Were Giants Upon the Earth' Bear & Co, 2010, p136


 

Hot Jupiters with Reverse Swing

Extra-solar planets are plentiful, and often bizarre.  Here's a very odd example.  It's in the Scorpius constellation, about 1000 light years away, and is called WASP-17.  Unusually, its orbit proceeds backwards, and is tilted at a spectacular 150 degrees, whilst lying extremely close to its own sun (1).  It is twice the size of Jupiter, with half the mass, so is too small to be classified even as a sub-brown dwarf.  Nevertheless, it shows some interesting Dark Star characteristics.  Astrophysicists now think the backwards-spin may be attributable to a gravitational coupling between two planets:

"In some solar systems, the sun spins one way while a giant gassy planet, known as a hot Jupiter, orbits in the opposite direction.  Scientists, reporting in the journal Nature, attribute the effect to gravitational coupling between two planets as they near each other, which leads to the planet nearest its sun, over time, having its orbit flipped as it is hauled much closer to the star." (2)

The whole scenario of oppositely-spinning planets is a bizarre one.  It defies conventional wisdom.  To explain such blatant anomalies, scientists have to reach for some unconventional concepts.  Like highly remarkable migrations of gas giant planets.  The concept of such immense migration is outlined here:

"'How can one be spinning one way and the other orbiting exactly the other way? It's crazy. It so obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.' Astronomers have long theorised that big gas planets form further away from their stars, while Earth-like rocks are born closer in But just because a Jupiter-like planet forms in the outer reaches of a solar system doesn't mean it stays there, [Frederic Rasio of Northwestern University] and his colleagues reported.  When planetary systems contain more than one planet, in addition to a star, each planet has its own gravitational force, causing the planets to interact and eventually pulling the gas giants close to the star and even reversing its orbit, the scientists found. This process is known as gravitational perturbation, or an exchange of angular momentum." (2)

In these crucial lines I see mechanisms for how a massive Planet X body could find itself in a wide elliptical orbit around the Sun.  The Dark Star may have formed initially nearer to the Sun, causing cataclysms early in the solar system's history.  It was those fateful interactions that 'exchanged angular momentum' through 'gravitational perturbation' and flung the Dark Star out into its current wider orbit.  One does not need to imagine a captured planet at all - a key critique of Sitchin's 12th Planet Theory down the years, especially by the late Tom van Flandern.

Andy Lloyd, 13th May 2011

 

(2) Daily Mail "Reason why giant planets in other solar systems orbit the 'wrong' way finally explained" 12th May 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1386261/Reason-giant-planets-solar-systems-orbit-wrong-way-finally-explained.html#ixzz1MAxeolUQ   with thanks to Mart

 

Gurdjieff, Beelzebub, and Zecharia Sitchin

Author P.T. Mistlberger has kindly given me permission to reproduce an abridged essay from his new book "The Three Dangerous Magi", which looks at remarkable similarities between the fictional writings of Gurdjieff, and the theories of Zecharia Sitchin.  Gurdjieff's writings predate those of Sitchin's by a couple of decades, and there appears to be no link between the two men. Yet amazingly similar ideas evolved independently of each other, across continents and time:

Gurdjieff, Beelzebub, and Zecharia Sitchin

    Gurdjieff, Belcebú, y Zecharia Sitchin

 

Photosynthesis near a Dark Star

As many of my readers will know, I've looked closely down the years at how a habitable environment might exist on a terrestrial-sized moon in close orbit around a failed sub-brown dwarf star.  Where it is relatively straightforward to show how water would exist on such a world, a more tricky question has arisen around how vegetation would grow in such an environment. The so-called extremeophiles found on Earth are testament to the sheer tenacity of life in harsh environments.  But if we're talking about actual vegetation growing on the surface of the terrestrial world orbiting a Dark Star, then greater complexity is involved.

This has been presented as a sticking point for my theory.  Vegetation on Earth needs UV/blue light radiation from the Sun to thrive, through photosynthesis.  But could a Dark Star provide the kind of energy required to sustain plant life?  And if not, then how could animal life be sustained on a world devoid of vegetation?  Well, recent research offers us a glimpse of how this might work:

"The temperature of a star determines its colour and, hence, the colour of light used for photosynthesis. Depending on the colours of their star-light, plants would evolve very differently," said [Jack] O'Malley-James ... [who] is working on a PhD to assess the potential for photosynthetic life in multi-star systems with different combinations of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs.  "Our simulations suggest that planets in multi-star systems may host exotic forms of the more familiar plants we see on Earth. Plants with dim red dwarf suns for example, may appear black to our eyes, absorbing across the entire visible wavelength range in order to use as much of the available light as possible.  They may also be able to use infrared or ultraviolet radiation to drive photosynthesis."

This hypothesis is untested, of course.  But I'm buoyed up that extra-terrestrial plants might find a way despite a lack of ultra-violet/blue light radiation from a Dark Star.  By utilising more photosynthetic pigments, plants on the moon of a Dark Star would be black, and bathed in purplish red light from their nearby cold 'sun'. 

 

Andy Lloyd, 24th April 2011

Reference:  Royal Astronomical Society "NAM 14: Could black trees blossom in a world with two suns?" 20th April 2011  http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/217-news2011/1963-could-black-trees-blossom-in-a-world-with-two-suns, with thanks to Tom

 

 

Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire have released details of their new research about a distant Jupiter-sized companion orbiting the Sun, in the journal Icarus.  According to the patterns of long-period comet data that they've analysed, the potential for a gas giant-sized companion among the comets has increased.  However, it is not certain that a companion exists, just statistically likely.  Still, it seems to be a positive step forward for a sub-brown dwarf companion of greater mass than Jupiter, but less than a 'real' brown dwarf. 

This is very much in keeping with their initial assertion back in 1999, and also in line with my own contribution about a 'Dark Star' of several Jupiter masses (although our view of the distance such a companion lies at varies significantly - see my 2005 book 'Dark Star' for details).  Matese and Whitmire like to call their version of the Dark Star 'Tyche', adding to an steadily increasing glossary of terms for this putative object.

"We present updated dynamical and statistical analyses of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting that the sun has a wide-binary Jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass ≈1-4 MJupiter orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud." (2)

In the abstract of their 2010 paper, they offer a tentative orbital plane through which the Dark Star Tyche moves, although an actual position in the sky for its present location is not given.  They consider it likely that the infra-red sky search WISE should have spotted it, but as a minimum of two points of observation are needed over time to confirm that this object exists in the outer solar system, there may not have been sufficient opportunity for WISE to verify its existence during the experiment's relatively short lifetime:

"If the WISE team was lucky, it caught evidence for the Tyche solar companion twice before the space observatory's original mission ended in October. That could be enough to corroborate the object's existence within a few months as researchers analyze WISE's data.  But if WISE detected signs of Tyche only once (or not at all), researchers would have to wait years for other telescopes to confirm or deny the potential solar companion's existence, Matese said."  (3)

This leaves open the possibility that WISE may not offer the definitive proof one way or the other for the existence of the Sun's Dark Star companion.  Recent articles in the British tabloid Daily Mail, and broadsheet The Independent, indicate that the general public's awareness of a potential Dark Star discovery is growing apace (4,5).  The astrophysicists also indicate that there is a high likelihood that such a Dark Star would come with its own system of moons:

"Prof Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette believes the data may prove Tyche's existence within two years. He told the Independent (6): 'If it does, [fellow astrophysicist Prof John Matese] and I will be doing cartwheels. And that's not easy at our age.'

"He added he believes it will mainly be made of hydrogen and helium, with an atmosphere like Jupiter's, with spots and rings and clouds, adding: 'You'd also expect it to have moons. All the outer planets have them.' He believes the planet is so huge, it will have a raised temperature left from its formation that will make it far higher than others, such as Pluto, at -73C, as 'it takes an object this size a long time to cool off'." (5)

Other researchers have mooted the possibility that neighbouring red dwarf stars might have orbits that make sorties into the outer solar system (7).  Although red dwarf stars are very much bigger and brighter than the sub-brown dwarf Dark Stars that this website discusses, one neighbouring red dwarf less than 8 light years away was only discovered in 2003.  Brown dwarfs and red dwarfs are surprisingly common, and may fill in gaps between the Sun and the nearest stars.  That may make them ideal candidates to explain anomalies in comet behaviour from the outer solar system, as an alternative to an orbiting Dark Star.  However, such flyby events would be very rare, and the margin of error in calculating them from current known orbits are large.  An orbiting Dark Star still seems more likely when attempting to account for non-random long period comet activity.

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, 7th December 2010 and updated 15th/16th February 2011

References:

1) Lisa Grossman "Dark Jupiter May Haunt Edge of Solar System" 29th November 2010 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/oort-cloud-companion/  thanks to David

2) John J. Matese and Daniel P. Whitmire "Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud" 17th November 2010 doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.009
 
3) Charles Choi  "Giant Stealth Planet May Explain Rain of Comets from Solar System's Edge" 1st December 2010 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/secret-giant-planet-sun-companion-1011201.html  thanks to Lee

4) Daily Mail "Massive dark object 'lurking on edge of solar system hurling comets at Earth" 8th Dec. 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336540/Massive-dark-object-lurking-edge-solar-hurling-comets-Earth.html#ixzz17dHBD97r thanks to Mart

5) Daily Mail "Largest planet in the solar system could be about to be  discovered - and it's up to four times the size of Jupiter"  14th February 2011, thanks to Lee
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1356748/Search-Tyche-believed-largest-planet-solar-system.html#ixzz1E10JHjJU

6) Paul Rodgers "Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet" 13th February 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/up-telescope-search-begins-for-giant-new-planet-2213119.html#  with thanks to Lee, and  http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00555/tyche3_555342a.pdf with thanks to David

7) Mike Wall  "Solar System 'Nemesis': Nearby Stars Could Pose Threat" 16th February 2011,  http://www.space.com/10869-nemesis-dwarf-stars-collide-solar-system.html with thanks to John

 

New Articles:

Where did the Earth's water come from, and does current theory in astronomy now provide evidence for our world's early migration?

Did Earth's Water come from Asteroids?

El Gran Misterio Del Agua


 

Dark Star News

Dark Star News Archive 2009-10

Dark Star News Archive 2008-9

Dark Star News Archive 2006-7

 

Written by Andy Lloyd, author of 'The Dark Star' (2005), 'Ezekiel One' (2009), 'The Followers of Horus' (2010) and 'Darker Stars' (2018)

Published by Timeless Voyager Press