The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (20 page)

Dr. Holman's optimism is not without foundation. The luminosity of
objects in the solar system drops off dramatically with distance from the sun.
Large bodies, only slightly further away than those already discovered in the
vicinity of Neptune and Pluto, remain to be discovered. Examples of recent
massive EKBOs include Quaoar in 2002, a spherical object the size of a small
moon, and Sedna, a more substantial body still, which brought with it a whole
raft of problems. The floodgates of discovery appeared to be opening.

In 2004, a substantial planetoid was detected 4.4 billion miles
(48AU) from the sun. Currently known as 2004DW, it may be 1400 kilometers
across, and orbits the sun every 300 years. It has a high eccentricity, a
remarkable 20 degrees from the plane of the ecliptic, which brings forward
questions about its origins. One of the scientists who discovered this object,
Mike Brown, an associate professor of planetary astronomy at Caltech, had this
to say about the discovery's possible implications:

"It's now only a matter of time before something is going to
be discovered out there that will change our entire view of the outer solar
system.
⁶

This was an ambitious statement that was partly due to the
discovery of 2004 DW, but may also have be driven by all the new evidence
coming in about the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Mike Brown's team went on to
discover Sedna, the most dramatic discovery so far. But it is not just the
objects that are being found that are amazing scientists, it is also a certain
lack of objects...

In the last year or two, the astronomical community has been
shocked by another finding about the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. According to the
consensus of scientific opinion, it was expected that the Belt would extend
beyond the current ability to observe objects, and that as the technical
proficiency to capture dimmer objects grew, our knowledge of deeper objects in
the Belt would expand. However, workers on the cutting-edge of this field soon
discovered something that was not expected, and not readily explainable. The
Disc stopped.

The EKB has an empty band in it known as the "Kuiper
Cliff" or "Gap" where the predicted distribution of
planetesimals simply is not observed. The problem is a significant one, because
the population of 'EKBOs' beyond this point should actually be greater than
those within it. This is because they are too distant to have been disrupted by
Neptune and the other planets.

The acquired observational knowledge of this area is currently
limited, but it appears from work carried out by Allen,
et al.
that the
populations of EKBOs here drops off unexpectedly, and somewhat mysteriously.
^7.8
It either marks the end of the Belt, or a sizeable gap. In the terminology of
the astrophysicists, the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt is "truncated".

This has profound implications for our understanding of the formation
of the solar system. In fact, such a predicament has allowed the idea of an
undiscovered distant planet to creep back into the thoughts of astronomers. A
lack of objects beyond this 'cliff' would imply that the original
proto-planetary disc of the sun was curtailed at this point; an unexpected and
unlikely discovery.

Various ideas have been proposed to explain the Gap. We have
already noted the possibility that giant planetesimals may have been prevalent
in the early EKB, causing chaos. Then there's the Planet X debate. Another
possibility is that a passing star may have torn part of the outer belt away.
⁹

This finding presents a major problem that several research groups
have been urgently attempting to address, and, as we shall see, some tentative
conclusions appear to be pointing in the direction of the Dark Star Theory.

I had been corresponding with an independent researcher named John
Lee (aka 'Rajasun') who, like me, was not a professional astronomer, but had
learned a great deal of technical information by immersing himself in papers
and books about the outer solar system. He was of the opinion that the brown
dwarf could not travel too far into the planetary zone during perihelion. In
fact, he felt that it would remain beyond the orbit of Neptune for the entirety
of its perihelion passage. I could see that his technical arguments were good
ones, although they were in direct contrast to the case put forward by Sitchin,
that 'Nibiru' was capable of reaching as close as the asteroid belt during
perihelion.

John Lee's work seemed to mesh well with this new material about
how objects in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt were behaving, and I began to wonder
whether he might be onto something. Perhaps this more distant belt of comets and
planetesimals was actually the 'hammered bracelet' that Sitchin wrote about,
not the Asteroid Belt. After all, there were now two 'asteroid belts' in the
solar system to choose from, a situation that was not well known when Sitchin
had written most of his books.

I began to wonder whether the Dark Star's perihelion passage
occurred beyond Neptune. Neptune is not visible from Earth at all, of course,
and it was quite late on in the history of astronomy before it was first
observed. How could a Dark Star have been recorded in classical times, then?

Nibiru was once a luminous, glowing planet, as described in the
ancient texts. I wondered whether an approach to the planetary zone would
reveal these characteristics, as the old brown dwarf crossed through the Heliopause
and encountered the solar wind. After all, we know that these brown dwarfs are
highly active magnetically, and the influence of the Solar Wind within the
confines of the Heliopause might have been sufficient to 're-ignite' the old
flame.

John needed convincing though, because he was quite sure that a
brown dwarf as old as the solar system would not be capable of emitting any
light, no matter what the circumstances. And since we are unable to see either
Uranus of Neptune at these distances (and they are sizeable planets in their
own right), then the brown dwarf beyond Neptune would also be too faint to see
without a good telescope. His viewpoint was characteristically persuasive,
based as it was on the conventional scientific wisdom. This led to some soul
searching on my part.

We had an ongoing debate about this issue for some time. At the
crux of the problem, was whether the rogue brown dwarf could ever become
visible from Earth. If it did appear as a flaring red star, rather like a comet
on fire, then this could have created a series of mythological descriptions,
which formed the basis of much of my earlier work. If it was invisible
throughout its orbit around the sun then I had a big problem on my hands.

To try and solve this problem, we sought various scientific
opinions. This in itself was a tricky business: most scientists were making a
point of avoiding the subject. Fortunately, John was sufficiently versed in the
technicalities of astrophysics to engage professional astronomers in debate, and
even to precipitate new research on his behalf!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their paper created a stir in Britain, hitting the newsstands
through the Independent
¹⁵
and the popular science magazine New
Scientist.
¹²
I also placed this new information in the alternative
community's domain, which at the time was rather taken with the idea that
Planet X was about to bring about the end of the world, as had been
comprehensively recorded by Mark Hazelwood
¹⁶
, amongst others. For
some reason, Planet X had become synonymous with an imminent End of the World.

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

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

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

British Eccentricity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article then quotes Alan Stern, an astronomer at the Southwest
Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, who remarks that the evidence for the
existence of 'Planet X' is “compelling”1.
¹⁹